We are all stochastic parrots. Currently, millions of years of evolutionary pressure have produced a better algorithm than a few years of optimization pressure but we’ll see how long that remains true!
Evolution selects for fit organisms that have to survive and reproduce in the world, not language models waiting on prompts. The temptation to analogize technology to biology is just top hard to resist I guess. Problem with analogies and metaphors is they are never accurate, they are only similar in some respects.
I think it is worth asking whether anthropomorphization of LLMs does anything to contribute to a better understanding of them that isn't entirely post-hoc ("of course they were going to find CVEs, solve ARC-AGI...") or if it just ends up reinforcing simplified teleological views of neuroscience, evolution or psychology etc.
Sure, there are potential risks to anthropomorphizing language. There's also potential benefits, in terms of allowing us to talk about an emerging alien intelligence.
FWIIW, I don't think I was anthropomorphizing. Stretching an analogy, yes. Optimization pressure is producing something with at least characteristics of intelligence. Obviously in a very different way than evolution produced the human brain, but the similarities are there.
LLMs are a national security issue? Why is China releasing their models then?
The question is not whether you should have datacenters, or the most advanced chips, or the ability to build the most capacity. But do we need all this now? Will there be enough demand? People want to make profits form this thing, and what's being pointed out is that maybe there won't be enough demand to generate profits for all this investment.
I would guess there is probably a capability ceiling beyond which China will not open source their weights. Maybe there is a scenario where they do so or threaten to do so if the US is so far ahead or something as a deterrent.
>But do we need all this now?
Did people want to make profits from the nuclear arms race? I'm sure some did, but it was not really a requirement.
The bottom line is there is a theoretical capability of AI which is effectively a super weapon that can be deployed against your competitor. If you think that is a possibility, even with a low probability, you should probably have a giant AI-related build if you are the US or China.
AUR isn't a traditional repository but more functions like a paste bin for package build scripts you have to go out of your way to enable and use at your own risk. It is not how actual Linux repositories work which are way more safe than google or even apple app store.
> way more safe than google or even apple app store.
Probably because of how people submit directly to the commercial app stores and the app store staff are expected to accept them as long as no malware or other problems are detected. Such problems are generally explicitly listed on Terms of Service and app submitters may be able to dispute rejections. Meaning problems generally need to be concrete and justifiable. Also, because of the sheer number, problems are likely scanned for, rather than each app being personally considered by a developer.
FOSS distro package repo maintainers generally don't have any such pressures. They get their absolute pick of what to include from the wild, only taking as much as they're able to handle.
Also, distro repo maintainers handle the building from the source code themselves, while app store apps are closed source to the app stores. Their ability to inspect apps is very limited.
