It’s a joke, but I’m 43 and my mom knew others who were pregnant around the same time and told to smoke by actual doctors so they’d have a smaller baby and easier birth.
Doctors still do this, at least in Germany. When you’re a smoker and getting pregnant, your doctor will most likely not try to bully you into quitting, instead they inform you about the risks and recommend you to cut down the smoking to a minimum but they will also acknowledge that you will most likely not overcome your addiction while your body is already under a lot of stress.
Damn, I’m def gonna start recommending smoking to any pregnant ladies i see–that’s quite a life pro tip! Go figure the AI was actually right about that lol
My grandmother started smoking after her doctor suggested that she take it up in order to help her lose weight after pregnancy. She smoked the rest of her life.
Still do. ADHD is still not recognized in lots of places and I certainly do, in form of vape. Tried lowering concentration only to find myself smoking at higher power and more often. Also, energy drinks, I don’t know what they put in them but withdrawal from them feels exactly like quitting smoking.
Kind of a weird passive-aggressive statement js, they didn’t imply their grandma lived to be any particular age. In fact from the statement we can’t tell at all, “the rest of her life” could’ve been 6 months (she fell asleep with a cigarette in her mouth and the set the bed on fire).
I remember the big arguments about enacting a no smoking rule in meetings at work. Just the meeting rooms. It was of course presumed that people could smoke in their office.
I genuinely hate that this is accurate… This is 2024, everyone. Please vote against Trump by selecting “Biden” this November. You don’t have to like Biden, you just have to understand that if we don’t, our country is fucked.
I am 51, so Gen-X, but I have been a skater, surfer, gamer and chronically online most of my life (BBS old schooler!). In other words, my speak has always included current terms which I use unironically. Except rizz. Rizz is just cringe AF.
There is no such thing as generational slang. There is just slang.
There’s an idea about “autistic ai” or something where you give ai an objective like “get a person from point a to b as fast as you can” and the ai goes so fast the g force kills the person but the ai thinks it was a success because you never told it to keep the person alive.
Though I suppose that’s more human error. Something we take as a given but a machine will not.
Here’s the thing: what they keep calling ‘AI’ isn’t really ‘artificial intelligence’ at all. It’s just language processing on a large scale. This type of software has no actual cognitive capability; it can’t ‘think’, it has no capacity to ‘think’ at all, but they’ve written it so it gives the appearance of ‘thinking’; it’s a trick, it’s fake.
Your brain is also “just a Chinese room”. It’s just physic, chemistry and biology. There is no magic inside your brain. If a “Chinese room” is fast enough and can fool everyone into “believing” that it’s fluent in chinese, than the room speaks chinese.
This fails to engage with the thought experiment. The question isn’t if “the room is fluent in Chinese.” It is whether the machine learning model is actually comparable to the person in the room, executing program instructions to turn input into output without ever understanding anything about the input or output.
The same is true for your brain. Show me the neurons that are fluent in Chinese. Of course the LLM is just executing code. And if we have AGI it will also just be “executing code” but so does your brain. It’s not exactly code (but maye AGI will be analog computers, so not exactly code either) but the laws of physics dictate what your brain does. The laws of physics don’t understand Chinese, the atoms and molecules don’t understand Chinese. “Understanding Chinese” is an emergent property.
Think about it that way: Assume every person you know (execpt you) is just some form of Chinese Room … You first of all couldn’t prove that and second it wouldn’t matter at all.
We aren’t trying to establish that neurons are conscious. The thought experiment presupposes that there is a consciousness, something capable of understanding, in the room. But there is no understanding because of the circumstances of the room. This demonstrates that the appearance of understanding cannot confirm the presence of understanding. The thought experiment can’t be formulated without a prior concept of what it means for a human consciousness to understand something, so I’m not sure it makes sense to say a human mind “is a Chinese room.” Anyway, the fact that a human mind can understand anything is established by completely different lines of thought.
That’s specifically LLMs. Image recognition like OP has nothing to do with language processing. Then there’s generative AI which needs some kind of mapping between prompts and weights, but is also a completely different type of “AI”
That doesn’t mean any of these “AI” products can think, but don’t conflate LLMs and AI as being the same
It’s all garbage and I consider all of it to be a fad and I just can’t wait until the world wakes up and realizes what utter crap it is and it just goes away.
It’s crap, too many people believe the hype, they see TV shows and movies with total fantasy AI in it, they think this crapware is like that, they think there’s someone alive in that box, they’ll come to trust it too much, and they’ll get wrecked because of that. THAT is the real danger of this garbage.
You should watch actually AI safety researcher’s thoughts on this. Here’s the link. It’s partially overhyped, but huge strides have been made in this area and it shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s best to be extra careful than ignorant.
How can you know the system has no cognitive capability ? We haven’t solved the problem for our own minds, we have no definition of what consciousness is. For all we know we might be a multimodal LLM ourselves.
If we can’t even begin to understand how a biological brain like ours produces the phenomenon of ‘thought’ and ‘consciousness’, then how the fuck can you build machines and write software that does those things? Rhetorical question, we can’t, full stop. All we’ve got is fakery, the illusion of ‘thinking’, ersatz, not the real thing.
For fuck’s sake, I go round and round with people on this shit every fucking time because everyone believes the hype and are never told the facts. They watch TV shows and movies and think someone made that real. They take for granted what their brains can do naturally and effortlessly (…well, not so effortlessly in too many peoples case) and knowing nothing about software or hardware think it’s trivial to make machines that can do what their own brain can do. It. Is. Not.
Language processing is a cognitive capability. You’re just saying it’s not AI because it isn’t as smart as HAL 9000 and Cortana. You’re getting your understanding of computer science from movies and video games.
No, moron, I’m NOT. Go talk to neuroscientists; that’s what I did. They’ll tell you: an amoeba has more cognitive capability than the best of this crapware.
YOU get your “”“AI”“” information from media hype, who gets it from AI company marketing departments, who are told: “Sell this crap we created so we can get paid”.
You’re dumb. You’re so dumb that you can’t understand when someone who is actually smart tells you something, so you think they’re dumb. Get yourself a dog, name it ‘Clue’, so you’ll always have one.
It’s called the AI alignment problem, it’s fascinating, if you want to dig deeper in the subject I highly recommend ‘Robert miles AI safety’ channel on YouTube
AI’s are Mathematic’s calculations. If you ordered that execution, are you responsible for the death? It happened because you didn’t write instructions well enough; test check against that which doesn’t throw life on the scale; or maybe that’s just the cheeky excuse to be used when people start dying before enough haven’t done so that no one is left A.S. may do it, if your lucky. Doesn’t matter. It’ll just bump over from any of its thousand T-ultiverses.
I read about a military AI that would put its objectives before anything else (like casualties) and do things like select nuclear strikes for all missions that involved destruction of targets. So they adjusted it to allow a human operator to veto strategies, in the simulation this was done via a communications tower. The AI apparently figured out that it could pick the strategy it wanted without veto if it just destroyed the communications tower before it made that selection.
Though take it with a grain of salt because the military denied the story was accurate. Which could mean it wasn’t true or it could mean they didn’t want the public to believe it was true. Though it does sound a bit too human-like for it to pass my sniff test (an AI wouldn’t really care that its strategies get vetoed), but it’s an amusing anecdote.
Almost didn’t hear my tire pop 30 min ago because of music. Should have turned it louder instead of stopping because now I have to deal with it
Edit: in case anyone was wondering… Strut snapped and popped three tires trying to get to a shop. Called a tow to tow ten min down the road for 100$ :^) love that for me
It actually popped the one tire twice… I think lol. I heard a loud bang/pop and pulled over, kicked the tire and pressed on it a few times and it didn’t move at all so drove a little bit more down the road (less than 20 mph) and it popped again. Though maybe the first bang was the spring snapping… Definitely deflated the second time though. Then the mechanic showed up and put a spare on (I didn’t have a donut, I just assumed it was in my wheel space in the trunk, also apparently don’t have a jack soooo whoops). Drove it down the road a little anddddd pop goes the new old wheel rofl.
Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’ve seen some legal experts talk about how Google basically got away from misinformation lawsuits because they weren’t creating misinformation, they were giving you search results that contained misinformation, but that wasn’t their fault and they were making an effort to combat those kinds of search results. They were talking about how the outcome of those lawsuits might be different if Google’s AI is the one creating the misinformation, since that’s on them.
Yeah the Air Canada case probably isn’t a big indicator on where the legal system will end up on this. The guy was entitled to some money if he submitted the request on time, but the reason he didn’t was because the chatbot gave the wrong information. It’s the kind of case that shouldn’t have gotten to a courtroom, because come on, you’re supposed to give him the money any it’s just some paperwork screwup caused by your chatbot that created this whole problem.
In terms of someone someone getting sick because they put glue on their pizza because google’s AI told them to… we’ll have to see. They may do the thing where “a reasonable person should know that the things an AI says isn’t always fact” which will probably hold water if google keeps a disclaimer on their AI generated results.
They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.
While he’s no doubt very high intelligence, I think there’s a combination of personality, personal interests, and drive that these outstanding people have. For some people, the work is what they want to be doing AND what makes them happy/fulfilled.
Like you, I am not like that. A productive day at work can feel great, but I’m never sitting at home thinking I’d rather be working on some idea for an app or game.
Society has taught me that what I SHOULD want to do is that “productive” stuff. Work long hours, strike it rich on my own or climb the ladder at work, etc. But the wiring in my brain does not get fulfillment and happiness from that stuff. But spending that time on family, pets, and hobbies has greatly increased my quality of life over the past few years.
I like to consider what I would or wouldn’t regret when I’m older. I’ve heard plenty of successful people lament not being a better parent while focused on their career. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard somebody regret spending time with their family instead of their work.
I applaud this future thinking. you need bare metal or whatever you consider L4 to truly rice a system. Gone are the days where superior performance was a couple of finely tuned cpu flags away.
I dual booted it as a desktop for about 6 months around the same time, but honestly all I did is use it as a desktop and browser. I could hardly figure out how to do anything else. I’ve forgotten everything about the experience, and anything I happen to accidentally remember I try to also forget.
Inheritance starts to suck > 1 level deep. Multiple inheritance starts to suck at the point people discuss adding it to a language, or a few femtoseconds after the big bang, whichever comes first.
That’s just like Hangul, but for computer numbers.
Once you’re quite good at reading hexadecimals, you no longer need to look up binary, though you still need decimal-hexadecimal conversion, which is slower.
lemmy.world
Top