I don't think the described cipher has enough degrees of freedom for that to be possible.

> while completely sidestepping any notion of consciousness/self awareness.

How are you so sure about this?

You can't see what the internal experience of an LLM is like any better than you can see the internal experience of another person.

That's what sidestepping means, no?

That the answer doesn't matter, and capabilities and behaviour are there either way.

That wasn't my reading of the comment, but I guess it's possible that that is what was intended.

To my mind, "sidestepping the question of consciousness" and "sidestepping any notion of consciousness" mean very different things.

From context it doesn't look like this was the interpretation of "sidestepping" OP was using.

Possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship ?

Most of the sails in the article seemed to be rotor sails, but the suction sail mentioned by GP seems to be a type of turbosail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail

Asking an LLM to play chess by writing algebraic notation is like asking a human to play chess blindfolded.

Yes some people can do it but most people can't even if they're unusually intelligent.

You really need to be giving the LLM a board representation.

EDIT: I see that they actually were giving the LLMs a board representation and they still played badly. Fair enough then.

Right. The existence of jet planes doesn't invalidate Olympics. Why would the existence of machine solutions invalidate human puzzle solving?

Because this was a mystery. The other replies seem to be missing that point. It’s similar to the issue that mathematicians are having in their field right now.

If the thing that makes it interesting is that the solution is unknown to everyone, then would you also oppose humans publishing solutions? Once the solution is published the mystery is gone.

Also, just because someone else knows something shouldn't make you any less curious about it yourself. If you don't know it then you don't know it, regardless of whether somebody else does. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as...

The Insert key toggles insert mode.

Mind blown: we have always by default been in insert mode.

Commodore 64 was by default in overwrite mode.

When I switched to PC being in insert mode took some getting used to.

Originally, in the days of text-mode forms, overwrite was the default, because that made more sense for fixed-length input fields.

Not in vi. :)

I think they mean there was a greater variation in reluctance than might be expected, or that there was some serious arm-twisting to get people to go along, which had future consequences.

You only notice the ones that aren't safe.

How would you know if someone bypassed the restrictions if they were riding it safely?

Scooters just don't have the geometry to ride fast safely, they are incredibly prone to flicking the front wheel out and chucking the rider on the ground. The only way they can be ridden safely is riding relatively slowly.

"Hasn't crashed yet" is different to "safely"

Because if they are riding it safely, there would be no need to bypass the restrictions.

There is reason for speed limits, they are not there to f--k with people for fun.

You can remove the speed limit of a vehicle for when you want to have fun on a closed course. You don't have to always go over the factory limit.

That implies that speed itself is unsafe. Which it is not. Airplanes go some 500 mph and mostly don't kill people.

> We obviously have much better ways of doing such things today

Do we?

I mean you can skip imagemagick and use HTML5 canvas, but otherwise I think I wouldn't change a thing.

We have much more complicated ways of doing such things today, for sure.

Index funds.