vcmj

I read this question a couple times, initially assuming bad faith, even considered ignoring it. The ability to change, would be my answer. I don't know what you actually mean.

Personally my threshold for intelligence versus consciousness is determinism(not in the physics sense... That's a whole other kettle of fish). Id consider all "thinking things" as machines, but if a machine responds to input in always the same way, then it is non-sentient, where if it incurs an irreversible change on receiving any input that can affect it's future responses, then it has potential for sentience. LLMs can do continuous learning for sure which may give the impression of sentience(whispers which we are longing to find and want to believe, as you say), but the actual machine you interact with is frozen, hence it is purely an artifact of sentience. I consider books and other works in the same category.

I'm still working on this definition, again just a personal viewpoint.

Not sure if this is the right answer I'm not familiar with that ecosystem: They have comparisons on their site

Most of the largest datasets are kind of garbage because of this. I've had this idea to run the data through the network every epoch and evict samples that are too similar to the output for the next epoch but never tried it. Probably someone smarter than me already tried that and it didn't work. I just feel like there's some mathematical way around this we aren't seeing. Humans are great at filtering the cruft so there must be some indicators there.

I think I see where you're coming from. The computer in the comic is a Rule 110 automata, known to be Turing complete. It can perform complex calculations, allegedly.

I suppose it can get a bit philosophical whether an incomplete time instant is even visible from the inside of a simulation, because nothing moves after a single pass until the full frame is complete, hence limiting perception.

Unless you mean continuity as in non discrete physics, which is fair play for this specific computer but then there is the Planck length to consider.(edit: I am aware that discrete vs continuous is a whole holy war on its own)

He bases the next row of stones on the previous one, changing them by a consistent rule? Its an unorthodox computer with infinite memory. Why does that not count as a simulation? I'm not following

Its a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_waiting

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" - Bjarne Stroustrup

I feel like its difficult to quantify for jobs where you're being paid to think. Even when I'm goofing off, the problem I need to solve for the day is still lingering in the back of my head somewhere. Actively squinting at it doesn't seem to make things go any faster and when I do return to work it's usually to mash out reems of code after letting it stew, but yes, the actual amount of time I'm fulfilling my job description is... less than my working hours.

Not an answer to the question, but in case performance is the goal, Torchaudio has it here

Yes, forgot the exact details apologies