<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:0cdf10b6-d4b4-e4ac-5d38-7fc17847db32@gmail.com">Sadly,
      there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.
      <br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m">https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m</a>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <p><tongue-in-cheek> <br>
    </p>
    <blockquote>
      <blockquote><img moz-do-not-send="true"
          src="https://nitter.cz/pic/media%2FFmwNndiWIAIYYtf.png%3Fname%3Dsmall"
          alt="" width="567" height="186"></blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote>
      <p>sounds like the "woke mob" is interfering with patriotic
        bestial pedophiles who are just exercising their first, second,
        maybe fifth and just in case, the ninth amendment rights? ...</p>
    </blockquote>
    <p></tic></p>
    <p>Every time I respond to a Captcha challenge, I feel as if I'm
      being conscripted to help train an image recognition ML model.  
      And do we know how (not if) OpenAI, et alii are using *our
      questions* to train a new (subset of) model?</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:0cdf10b6-d4b4-e4ac-5d38-7fc17847db32@gmail.com">
      <br>
      On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">I totally agree that realizable behavior
        is what matters.
        <br>
        <br>
        The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course)
        will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in
        all respects, including come up with creative solutions to not
        only the world's most pressing problems but also small creative
        things like writing poems, and then to do the mental and
        physical tasks required to provide goods and services to all in
        the world,
        <br>
        <br>
        Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future;
        intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence
        and energy, the world will be very different indeed.
        <br>
        <br>
        To quote Sam Altmen at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms">https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms"><https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms></a>
         :
        <br>
        <br>
        "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters
        towards most things we want. A future where these are not the
        limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be
        amazingly better."
        <br>
        <br>
        <br>
        <br>
        On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels
        <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com></a>>
        wrote:
        <br>
        <br>
            Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior
        is what matters.   Analog computers will have imperfect
        behavior, and there will be leakage between components.   A
        large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar
        for my purposes.   The unrolling would be inside a skull, so
        somewhat isolated from interference.
        <br>
        <br>
            -----Original Message-----
        <br>
            From: Friam <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com></a>> On Behalf Of glen
        <br>
            Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
        <br>
            To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><mailto:friam@redfish.com></a>
        <br>
            Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
        <br>
        <br>
            I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion
        implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can
        tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying
        about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by
        outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some
        sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more
        "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
        <br>
        <br>
            On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
        <br>
             > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread
        some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to
        distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.
        <br>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>