Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks.
Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents.
> The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in the US? Income also same OOM.
I'm generally suspicious of IQ but still - 2 standard deviations above average would include about 2.5% of the population. Hassabis is in a significantly more exclusive slice.
His parents weren't particularly wealthy. More likely: he is exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, visionary, and grew up in an environment which fostered those attributes in a precocious child.
Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then.
Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.
You're just showing your age. I can't stand it but my daughter says "Bro" to me and my wife. As a 40 year old Californian I've come to accept it as this generation's "dude" or "man" (as in "man, that sucks"), sadly.
I'm genuinely fascinated and confused by what's going on in this thread, as apparently British and American English speakers misunderstand each other.
If I understand correctly, we've got:
libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"
Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...
And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)
I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.
Heh I thought like you until we had kids. The 6th graders now are all "bro this," "bro that." And it's not even the usual English "bro," it's a slightly Aussified "broah" like it has a weird umlaut. I resigned to just roll with it. "Begging the question," though, that's a hill I will die on.
I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery.
> I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way
This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having a mind"... "Human", i.e. "heartly", is not gendered - yet some languages typically correlate derivations like French "homme" with male in default understanding... This should be clear, but just to be sure.
> bro
To the best of my recollection, in the IE roots "brother" is "who assists in the rites" - not necessarily gendered. (Some add that the idea is "supporter".) The suggestion from the term is that of the "brotherhood" - which is not gendered (the idea of fraternity is not gendered). "Sister" should instead mean "welcome" (to some studies): not gendered in this case; others interpret it as gendered ("one's girl" - this is what Etymonline proposes).
> "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day
That's odd. You wouldn't mind being called "a generic Italo- or possibly French ("Guido" or "Guy")"*; you wouldn't mind being called a "doodle", which has a connotation of "simpleton" - and you refuse "brother", which basically means to imply "getting close to you" (as an opening from the speaker)?
* Edit: Yes, also the explosion of the term and the non-national derivation from "Guy Fawkes" (from the celebration that involved displays of Guy Fawkes ragdolls) should be remembered. Still not precisely complimentary, I'd say.
Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.
I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.
It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.
Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").
> its meaning is in the minds of the participants
Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.
> entirely insufficient to justify its use
Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.
Now duly supposing you are not ironic (all ages and paths come here):
You call people "brother"; "brother" means "supportive" (and is used for "openness", "closeness"); if you want to be close and supporting to people, if you want to be an asset (not a liability), you will have to cultivate yourself, to get the wisdom required. Erudition is not yet wisdom, but coupled with the good intention to learn the important things it surely helps.
The one thing people seem to agree upon is that AI is a lever of control. What's surprising to me, in all my naïeveté, is how eagerly people will enforce this at the behest of billionaires.
OMG, some of those are legit good. That said the AI seems minimally guidable. It seems to ignore three majority of instructions in https://suno.com/song/25b16ab7-bfea-451d-abb3-8b52cdd783d0?s... so I guess like most tools, it's fine if you want to get what you're given but not really control it.
Music, like all art, is a human expression. AI has no desires, it feels nothing, it believes in nothing, thus it has nothing to express. It may imitate music, but it's not music.
Would you consider a beautiful sunset as art? is the value of music found in the source or the listener? I argue it is only the listener. The source is irrelevant. That is surely the case for me, and I dont think I'm unhinged or insane. I have a strong feeling I am not a minority in this regard.
Pythagoras argued that music is essentially number and proportion. If beauty is found in the geometry of sound, then the "belief" of the architect is secondary to the elegance of the structure.
When you are hearing music, you are hearing the end Result of hundreds of intentional decisions made over a long time of deliberation, same can be said for Art. I simply do not hear or see that with AI Music or Art, even If I don't know it is AI generated.
A big part of listening to Music for me is relatability. I want to understand the tools and sounds used. And then I can make something similar with the tools I have.
None of that exists in AI. Music can only inspire others if it is the result of inspiration and real decisions that can be understood.
...there is no way that this is what you believe. This is such a pseudo-complex definition of art that I cant even fathom the levels of twisted cope that are fueling it.
I simply don't believe you are arguing in good faith when you say this is your thought process for all music.
"I simply do not hear or see that with AI Music or Art, even If I don't know it is AI generated."
This is just a bold faced lie. You are claiming you can tell its AI generated even if you dont know its AI generated. What.
Upon hearing mashed up pop music with almost coherent lyrics, "Shall I compare thee to a sunset?" What is going on here?
Have you not heard music before? Is Suno your first experience with music-shaped sounds? Because, buddy, this is wild. You're not getting Rumours out of an AI. You're not getting Time (The Revelator) out of AI. London Calling does not spring from the geometry of sound.
Maybe I'm just not as emotional as you. Could definitely be the case. Even before AI music I never cared much about lyrics. Nor artist names beyond finding similar music to a song I like. I listen to music for the sound, which does elicit emotion and feelings that are more enjoyable or less depending on my mood, but I don't care about the story being told.
I still don't think you're saying anything that refutes the geometry of sound argument, however. If you heard an AI song you liked, and didnt know it was AI, and found out after the fact, would you be rational enough to accept you could be wrong? Or would it turn you off to the song irrationally?
Tangential but AFAICT most people don't care about lyrics. If they did, so many hit songs would not be hits.
To name one, "Saving All My Love For You" should never be played at a wedding because the song is about having an affair with a married guy with kids. But no one listens to the Lyrics. They just hear the chorus. It's a hit for other reasons, not because of lyrics.
Similarly, few people listen to the lyrics of ""Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" (everybody must get stoned). It is not about drugs.
Heck, famously there's Bush Jr. (or more likely some PR person) using "Born in the USA" as a pro-American song. It's not a pro-America song at all. I wouldn't call it anti-American but it's definitely a song entirely about problems in America. Not praise.
You're all over this thread shilling, please stop.
Also, you already predefined that certain actions would definitely be rational, and certain others would definitely be irrational, and then ask what action would the person take? Lmao.
This. America is an oligarchy. The political system is a joke facade with a revolving door to corporations. Your vote is meaningless, you dont actually have a choice. Media brainwashes the swaths.... but thought crime still isnt a reality here.
reply