You would think that. But as a person having an iPhone… No it is not. At least the part of iPhones currently not having that option. App-Icons on your “desktop” will always align in dense rows from top left to bottom right, with no free spaces allowed.
It is a bit weird, and I don’t really see why, since you can change the order of icons in this dense row-grid. I am glad Apple warms up to the fact that people might actually want some kind of customization on their devices and not everything “the way Apple decrees it”.
But to be really honest… I did not even notice prior to this post, and I had all Android before switching to my current iPhone. So at least for me this is a really small non-issue, and maybe a nice-to-have feature.
I had an iPad for a while and it definitely bothered me. Really just about everything did. It felt like I had to fight with it to do just about anything I wanted to do.
Well, the issue is just that you’re not thinking with the Apple mindset. If you’re having difficulty doing something through an Apple product, it really just means you were trying to do the wrong thing in the first place. Where Apple products really excel is in their integration, both between software and hardware, and between separate devices through iCloud servihahahaha I’m just messing with you but can you imagine some fanboy actually typing out shit like this?
Well, the issue is just that you’re not thinking with the Apple mindset. If you’re having difficulty doing something through an Apple product, it really just means you were trying to do the wrong thing in the first place.
Lol. That was exactly my take as well. Which is why after a few months of battling my new Apple laptop, I went to buy a generic PC lappie, slapped KDE on it and never looked back (this was a while back).
This remind me when in the 1980’s Cup Holders were introduced in Dodge Caravans, but most cars they expected you to buy this and clip it onto the inside window the story historygarage.com/essential-evolution-handy-cup-h…e. 1980’s
I was going to mention this. You can move them around; but you can’t move them anywhere you want. The icons will always be, as you say, in a dense grid of rows with no “blank” spaces between the icons.
I don’t know if the OP is true or satire or some kind of April fools thing, but it’s still accurate.
Try Mac OS next lol. “Here, hold down alt, smack your left ass cheek, and tap dance around your computer to run this unsigned executable”. It really feels like they’re deliberately violating the principle of discoverability to stop your from doing things that they don’t like.
Technically, Android does that, too, but the limit on that is a few years. If I’m not mistaken, the lowest version of Android that Google will allow a user to install through the Play Store is Android 12 (released in September 2020).
Yes, but 99% (give or take) of Android users won’t know or care how to install 3rd party apps. So most people would only care about the Google Play Store limitation.
The limitation is overcome the moment someone downloads and installs APK from web browser or some store. It is artificial, and for nerds that want to install apps older than those for Android 6, they can toggle that flag with ADB.
Apple on the other hand renders phones outside of its update cycle as junk devices, even if capable.
You can’t even cut/paste in Mac OS without using your mouse and modifier keys. Like, seriously? Also, it’s 2024 and they still don’t have window snapping. Like what the fuck, Tim Apple?
You can tho? You can use arrow keys to move around the text, and hold down control to move by entire words in most apps. CMD + C to copy and CMD + V to paste (CMD is what they call the super key). But yeah, they’re trying to push a pointer-centric design that nobody really wants instead of putting the keyboard first.
That’s copy/paste. There is no cut command in Mac AFAIK. There’s only the move command, which requires an additional modifier when pasting. If there’s a key combo for that modifier, then I would like to know what it is. The only way I know how to do it is with the context menu from right clicking and the modifier key. But still, why do they do it differently than every other operating system?
Cut is just Command + X. You can swap in Command for most of the windows shortcuts that use control. Why didn’t Apple just use the Control button for Control things? That I do not know.
I’m a Windows user, but my church uses a Mac to run its projection and video recording. I’ll admit it works pretty well for what we typically need it to do, but it recently took me like five minutes to figure out how to crop a picture because you apparently can’t do that by simply opening the file and clicking the crop icon.
Mac’s filesystem is an absolute mess, too. This might just be my own inexperience, but I’ve saved things like PowerPoints and videos in order to upload them, and then I’ll go to the website to upload them, and I won’t be able to find them because they’re not in a specific folder or something.
I picked up an iPhone several years ago, I think a 6 or 6s? Anyways, I tried to use it for a while, because I work in IT and sometimes need to support people on their iPhone, and being an Android person, I had no idea what I was doing.
I could not stand it. Everything took so much more effort. I never got rid of my android, I just tried to use the iPhone whenever possible to familiarize myself with the apple way of doing things. I hated some of the layouts, I missed the back button… Even something as simple as copy/paste just seemed a lot more cumbersome for no good reason.
I learned a lot about it and where options and such were located (which is what I primarily needed) then I simply used it a bit less and less all the time until I finally stopped using it entirely. I have no idea where it is at this point, but I’m sure it still works and I’m sure I would still hate it. I’ve wanted to retry the experiment with a newer device like the X or 11 or something, but anytime I consider it, I just think back on my experience and unless I can pick up a relatively modern iPhone for next to nothing, I’m pretty uninterested in trying again. I know iOS has had a lot of updates in the past few years since I used one and maybe it sucks less? But I’m not willing to sacrifice my sanity to figure it out.
I don’t mean to hate on iOS or iPhones. I certainly don’t like them, but if that’s what works for you, then go ham. I find it cumbersome and restrictive, and you’re free to disagree and use whatever you like; don’t let me stop you.
Right? I gotta use an iPad at work now and where the FUCK is the back button!?!? I’m so tired of mashing the home button. It’s cool AF that my stylus will put text specifically where I write it though, and it translates my cursive!
It’s Apple, their entire business model is making their tech as restrictive as possible and stripping away as much freedom as they legally can. You can’t name a company more power-hungry.
Thanks for sharing that, even despite the uncontrollable facepalm that resulted. What's terrible is that despite the fact that this artist is so crazy and racist, his art is actually pretty good.
What? Really? But as a cartoon how does that even work if it’s not ironic? … He asked rhetorically, knowing the right wing humor is basically just incoherent hate.
Inaccurate meme - the white and red RCAs in composite typically don’t actually carry the left and right channels - usually, the white one is L+R, meaning both the left and right channels combined into one, and the red one is L-R, the difference between the right and left channels.
This is done so that a mono television, which will only have a yellow and white port, will still be able to hear both audio channels, as opposed to having to completely miss out on one of them
It’s so funny, I had the same reaction! Never quite understood it, just switched plugs until it worked. Then it got phased out and… decades later a meme brings light to my confusing childhood!
Do you have a source for this? AFAICT this is untrue. Mono audio using just the white connector exists, but this depends on configuration and does not make the red connector a difference signal.
I swear that I’ve seen it mentioned somewhere, but you are entirely right that I can’t find a source. Maybe it was some weird device I used a long time ago? Regardless, sorry for not doing my research before posting
The video cable does a similar trick with how it supports color. This is why S-Video was superior to composite video until component came along. S-Video split the intensity and color into two signals and then component split the color further into a blue difference and a red difference. If you only wanted black and white, you didn’t need to use the color signals and the image would degrade to a monochrome representation.
The composite video, with only one video signal wire, was similar to what was received over the antenna, with the broadcast signal separated from the carrier signal and the audio sub bands removed. It was the video signal with the color signal still combined. The progression from Antenna -> Composite -> S-Video -> Component -> DVI-I -> DVI-D -> HDMI -> Display Port has been an interesting one. The changes in the digital realm have been less about the image quality, the digital signal can either be read or not, and more about the bandwidth and how much data can be sent, aka resolution and framerate. Those first four transitions in particular had significant impact on the image quality.
I can confirm that everything that uses component and L/R that I have used in my life (born in 2001 in the Netherlands, so PAL) has separate L and R channels. I have confirmed this with my multimeter before.
This was tried in court. The response from the judge was “If the man is dead, then he cannot petition the court. If the man is not dead, then his life sentence has not been served.” An excellent exchange of sophistry!
the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.
…
it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more—not less—susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.
Interesting. I wonder if it could be a kind of Dunning Kruger effect where you assume because you’re good at logic or some other smart thing your brain doesn’t have all the same zero day exploits as the rest of us.
If you look at his instructions, he says “Take general internet safety precautions and don’t open zip files from strangers without checking.”. I was making a joke that IDC and I want the theme. I can see why that didn’t really come through if you didn’t actually click his link, given the short nature of my reply.
That’s a different argument. We went through this with VHS. If you tape a broadcast that you paid for, it is not copyright infringement. Unless, you start making several copies and distributing them. Recording a Netflix screen and keeping it neatly in your hard drive is not CI, nor stealing for that matter. The only leg they have to stand on is when people start making copies and charging for distributing it. But even that argument has always been dubious.
They’re kind of right. LLMs are not general intelligence and there’s not much evidence to suggest that LLMs will lead to general intelligence. A lot of the hype around AI is manufactured by VCs and companies that stand to make a lot of money off of the AI branding/hype.
I believe they were implying that a lot of the people who say “it’s not real AI it’s just an LLM” are simply parroting what they’ve heard.
Which is a fair point, because AI has never meant “general AI”, it’s an umbrella term for a wide variety of intelligence like tasks as performed by computers.
Autocorrect on your phone is a type of AI, because it compares what words you type against a database of known words, compares what you typed to those words via a “typo distance”, and adds new words to it’s database when you overrule it so it doesn’t make the same mistake.
It’s like saying a motorcycle isn’t a real vehicle because a real vehicle has two wings, a roof, and flies through the air filled with hundreds of people.
Which is a fair point, because AI has never meant “general AI”, it’s an umbrella term for a wide variety of intelligence like tasks as performed by computers.
Do you mean in the everyday sense or the academic sense? I think this is why there’s such grumbling around the topic. Academically speaking that may be correct, but I think for the general public, AI has been more muddled and presented in a much more robust, general AI way, especially in fiction. Look at any number of scifi movies featuring forms of AI, whether it’s the movie literally named AI or Terminator or Blade Runner or more recently Ex Machina.
Each of these technically may be presenting general AI, but for the public, it’s just AI. In a weird way, this discussion is sort of an inversion of what one usually sees between academics and the public. Generally academics are trying to get the public not to use technical terms loosely, yet here some of the public is trying to get some of the tech/academic sphere to not, at least as they think, use technical terms loosely.
Arguably it’s from a misunderstanding, but if anyone should understand the dynamics of language, you’d hope it would be those trying to calibrate machines to process language.
Well, that’s the issue at the heart of it I think.
How much should we cater our choice of words to those who know the least?
I’m not an academic, and I don’t work with AI, but I do work with computers and I know the distinction between AI and general AI.
I have a little irritation at the theme, given I work in the security industry and it’s now difficult to use the more common abbreviation for cryptography without getting Bitcoin mixed up in everything.
All that aside, the point is that people talking about how it’s not “real AI” often come across as people who don’t know what they’re talking about, which was the point of the image.
All that aside, the point is that people talking about how it’s not “real AI” often come across as people who don’t know what they’re talking about, which was the point of the image.
The funny part is, as I mention in my comment, isn’t that how both parties to these conversations feel? The problem is they’re talking past each other, but the worst part is, arguably the more educated participant should be more apt to recognize this and clarify or better yet, ask for clarification so they can see where the disconnect is emerging to improve communication.
Also, let’s remember that it’s not the laypeople describing the technology in general personified terms like “learning” or “hallucinating”, which furthers some of the grumbling.
Well, I don’t generally expect an academic level of discourse out of image macros found on the Internet.
Usually when I see people talking about it, I do see people making clarifying comments and asking questions like you describe. Sorta like when I described how AI is an umbrella term.
I’m not sure I’d say that learning and hallucinating are personified terms. We see both of those out of any organism complex enough to have something that works like a nervous system, for example.
I’ve often seen people on Lemmy confidently state that current “AI” thinks and learns exactly like humans and that LLMs work exactly like human brains, etc.
Are you sure this wasn’t just people stating that when it comes to training on art there is no functional difference in the sense that both humans and AI need to see art to make it?
Weird, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that even remotely claimed.
Closest I think I’ve come is the argument that legally, AI learning systems are similar to how humans learn, namely storing information about information.
It’s usually some rant about “brains are just probability machines as well” or “every artists learns from thousands of pictures of other artists, just as image generator xy does”.
People who don’t understand or use AI think it’s less capable than it is and claim it’s not AGI (which no one else was saying anyways) and try to make it seem like it’s less valuable because it’s “just using datasets to extrapolate, it doesn’t actually think.”
Guess what you’re doing right now when you “think” about something? That’s right, you’re calling up the thousands of experiences that make up your “training data” and using it to extrapolate on what actions you should take based on said data.
You know how to parallel park because you’ve assimilated road laws, your muscle memory, and the knowledge of your cars wheelbase into a single action. AI just doesn’t have sapience and therefore cannot act without input, but the process it does things with is functionally similar to how we make decisions, the difference is the training data gets input within seconds as opposed to being built over a lifetime.
If you’ve ever actually used any of these algorithms it becomes painfully obvious they do not “think”. Give it a task slightly more complex/nuanced than what it has been trained on and you will see it draws obviously false conclusions that would be obviously wrong had any thought actual taken place. Generalization is not something they do, which is a fundamental part of human problem solving.
That’s true of any technology. As someone who is a programmer, has studied computer science, and does understand LLMs, this represents a massive leap in capability. Is it AGI? No. Is it a potential paradigm shift? Yes. This isn’t pure hype like Crypto was, there is a core of utility here.
Yeah I studied CS and work in IT Ops, I’m not claiming this shit is Cortana from Halo, but it’s also not NFTs. If you can’t see the value you haven’t used it for anything serious, cause it’s taking jobs left and right.
Crypto was never pure hype either. Decentralized currency is an important thing to have, it’s just shitty it turned into some investment speculative asset rather than a way to buy drugs online without the glowies looking
Pretty sure the meme format is for something you get extremely worked up about and want to passionately tell someone, even in inappropriate moments, but no one really gives a fuck
Depends on what you mean by general intelligence. I’ve seen a lot of people confuse Artificial General Intelligence and AI more broadly. Even something as simple as the K-nearest neighbor algorithm is artificial intelligence, as this is a much broader topic than AGI.
An artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of intelligent agent which, if realized, could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform. Alternatively, AGI has been defined as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities in the majority of economically valuable tasks.
If some task can be represented through text, an LLM can, in theory, be trained to perform it either through fine-tuning or few-shot learning. The question then is how general do LLMs have to be for one to consider them to be AGIs, and there’s no hard metric for that question.
I can’t pass the bar exam like GPT-4 did, and it also has a lot more general knowledge than me. Sure, it gets stuff wrong, but so do humans. We can interact with physical objects in ways that GPT-4 can’t, but it is catching up. Plus Stephen Hawking couldn’t move the same way that most people can either and we certainly wouldn’t say that he didn’t have general intelligence.
I’m rambling but I think you get the point. There’s no clear threshold or way to calculate how “general” an AI has to be before we consider it an AGI, which is why some people argue that the best LLMs are already examples of general intelligence.
Depends on what you mean by general intelligence. I’ve seen a lot of people confuse Artificial General Intelligence and AI more broadly. Even something as simple as the K-nearest neighbor algorithm is artificial intelligence, as this is a much broader topic than AGI.
Well, I mean the ability to solve problems we don’t already have the solution to. Can it cure cancer? Can it solve the p vs np problem?
And by the way, wikipedia tags that second definition as dubious as that is the definition put fourth by OpenAI, who again, has a financial incentive to make us believe LLMs will lead to AGI.
Not only has it not been proven whether LLMs will lead to AGI, it hasn’t even been proven that AGIs are possible.
If some task can be represented through text, an LLM can, in theory, be trained to perform it either through fine-tuning or few-shot learning.
No it can’t. If the task requires the LLM to solve a problem that hasn’t been solved before, it will fail.
I can’t pass the bar exam like GPT-4 did
Exams often are bad measures of intelligence. They typically measure your ability to consume, retain, and recall facts. LLMs are very good at that.
Ask an LLM to solve a problem without a known solution and it will fail.
We can interact with physical objects in ways that GPT-4 can’t, but it is catching up. Plus Stephen Hawking couldn’t move the same way that most people can either and we certainly wouldn’t say that he didn’t have general intelligence.
The ability to interact with physical objects is very clearly not a good test for general intelligence and I never claimed otherwise.
I know the second definition was proposed by OpenAI, who obviously has a vested interest in this topic, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a useful or informative conceptualization of AGI, after all we have to set some threshold for the amount of intelligence AI needs to display and in what areas for it to be considered an AGI. Their proposal of an autonomous system that surpasses humans in economically valuable tasks is fairly reasonable, though it’s still pretty vague and very much debatable, which is why this isn’t the only definition that’s been proposed.
Your definition is definitely more peculiar as I’ve never seen anyone else propose something like it, and it also seems to exclude humans since you’re referring to problems we can’t solve.
The next question then is what problems specifically AI would need to solve to fit your definition, and with what accuracy. Do you mean solve any problem we can throw at it? At that point we’d be going past AGI and now we’re talking about artificial superintelligence…
Not only has it not been proven whether LLMs will lead to AGI, it hasn’t even been proven that AGIs are possible.
By your definition AGI doesn’t really seem possible at all. But of course, your definition isn’t how most data scientists or people in general conceptualize AGI, which is the point of my comment. It’s very difficult to put a clear-cut line on what AGI is or isn’t, which is why there are those like you who believe it will never be possible, but there are also those who argue it’s already here.
No it can’t. If the task requires the LLM to solve a problem that hasn’t been solved before, it will fail.
Ask an LLM to solve a problem without a known solution and it will fail.
That’s simply not true. That’s the whole point of the concept of generalization in AI and what the few-shot and zero-shot metrics represent - LLMs solving problems represented in text with few or no prior examples by reasoning beyond what they saw in the training data. You can actually test this yourself by simply signing up to use ChatGPT since it’s free.
Exams often are bad measures of intelligence. They typically measure your ability to consume, retain, and recall facts. LLMs are very good at that.
So are humans. We’re also deterministic machines that output some action depending on the inputs we get through our senses, much like an LLM outputs some text depending on the inputs it received, plus as I mentioned they can reason beyond what they’ve seen in the training data.
The ability to interact with physical objects is very clearly not a good test for general intelligence and I never claimed otherwise.
I wasn’t accusing you of anything, I was just pointing out that there are many things we can argue require some degree of intelligence, even physical tasks. The example in the video requires understanding the instructions, the environment, and how to move the robotic arm in order to complete new instructions.
I find LLMs and AGI interesting subjects and was hoping to have a conversation on the nuances of these topics, but it’s pretty clear that you just want to turn this into some sort of debate to “debunk” AGI, so I’ll be taking my leave.
I agree, there is no formal definition for AGI so a bit silly to discuss that really. Funnily enough I inadvertantly wrote the nearest neighbour algorithm to model swarming behavour back when I was an undergrad and didn’t even consider it rudimentary AI.
Can I ask what your take on the possibility of neural networks understanding what they are doing is?
Yes. But the more advanced LLMs get, the less it matters in my opinion. I mean of you have two boxes, one of which is actually intelligent and the other is “just” a very advanced parrot - it doesn’t matter, given they produce the same output. I’m sure that already LLMs can surpass some humans, at least at certain disciplines. In a couple years the difference of a parrot-box and something actually intelligent will only merely show at the very fringes of massively complicated tasks. And that is way beyond the capability threshold that allows to do nasty stuff with it, to shed a dystopian light on it.
I mean of you have two boxes, one of which is actually intelligent and the other is “just” a very advanced parrot - it doesn’t matter, given they produce the same output.
You’re making a huge assumption; that an advanced parrot produces the same output as something with general intelligence. And I reject that assumption. Something with general intelligence can produce something novel. An advanced parrot can only repeat things it’s already heard.
LLMs can’t produce anything without being prompted by a human. There’s nothing intelligent about them. Imo it’s an abuse of the word intelligence since they have exactly zero autonomy.
I use LLMs to create things no human has likely ever said and it’s great at it, for example
‘while juggling chainsaws atop a unicycle made of marshmallows, I pondered the existential implications of the colour blue on a pineapples dream of becoming a unicorn’
When I ask it to do the same using neologisms the output is even better, one of the words was exquimodal which I then asked for it to invent an etymology and it came up with one that combined excuistus and modial to define it as something beyond traditional measures which fits perfectly into the sentence it created.
You can’t ask a parrot to invent words with meaning and use them in context, that’s a step beyond repetition - of course it’s not full dynamic self aware reasoning but it’s certainly not being a parrot
If you ask it to make up nonsense and it does it then you can’t get angry lol. I normally use it to help analyse code or write sections of code, sometimes to teach me how certain functions or principles work - it’s incredibly good at that, I do need to verify it’s doing the right thing but I do that with my code too and I’m not always right either.
As a research tool it’s great at taking a basic dumb description and pointing me to the right things to look for, especially for things with a lot of technical terms and obscure areas.
And yes they can occasionally make mistakes or invent things but if you ask properly and verify what you’re told then it’s pretty reliable, far more so than a lot of humans I know.
The difference is that you can throw enough bad info at it that it will start paroting that instead of factual information because it doesn’t have the ability to criticize the information it receives whereas an human can be told that the sky is purple with orange dots a thousand times a day and it will always point at the sky and tell you “No.”
To make the analogy actually comparable the human in question would need to be learning about it for the first time (which is analogous to the training data) and in that case you absolutely could convince the small child of that. Not only would they believe it if told enough times by an authority figure, you could convince them that the colors we see are different as well, or something along the lines of giving them bad data.
A fully trained AI will tell you that you’re wrong if you told it the sky was orange, it’s not going to just believe you and start claiming it to everyone else it interacts with. It’s been trained to know the sky is blue and won’t deviate from that outside of having its training data modified. Which is like brainwashing an adult human, in which case yeah you absolutely could have them convinced the sky is orange. We’ve got plenty of information on gaslighting, high control group and POW psychology to back that up too.
Feed LLMs all new data that’s false and it will regurgitate it as being true even if it had previously been fed information that contradicts it, it doesn’t make the difference between the two because there’s no actual analysis of what’s presented. Heck, even without intentionally feeding them false info, LLMs keep inventing fake information.
Feed an adult new data that’s false and it’s able to analyse it and make deductions based on what they know already.
We don’t compare it to a child or to someone that was brainwashed because it makes no sense to do so and it’s completely disingenuous. “Compare it to the worst so it has a chance to win!” Hell no, we need to compare it to the people that are references in their field because people will now be using LLMs as a reference!
Ha ha yeah humans sure are great at not being convinced by the opinions of other people, that’s why religion and politics are so simple and society is so sane and reasonable.
Helen Keller would belive you it’s purple.
If humans didn’t have eyes they wouldn’t know the colour of the sky, if you give an ai a colour video feed of outside then it’ll be able to tell you exactly what colour the sky is using a whole range of very accurate metrics.
People do that too, actually we do it a lot more than we realise. Studies of memory for example have shown we create details that we expect to be there to fill in blanks and that we convince ourselves we remember them even when presented with evidence that refutes it.
A lot of the newer implementations use more complex methods of fact verification, it’s not easy to explain but essentially it comes down to the weight you give different layers. GPT 5 is already training and likely to be out around October but even before that we’re seeing pipelines using LLM to code task based processes - an LLM is bad at chess but could easily install stockfish in a VM and beat you every time.
This is one of the worst rebuttals I’ve seen today because you aren’t addressing the fact that the LLM has zero awareness of anything. It’s not an intelligence and never will be without additional technologies built on top of it.
Why would I rebut that? I’m simply arguing that they don’t need to be ‘intelligent’ to accurately determine the colour of the sky and that if you expect an intelligence to know the colour of the sky without ever seeing it then you’re being absurd.
The way the comment I responded to was written makes no sense to reality and I addressed that.
Again as I said in other comments you’re arguing that an LLM is not will smith in I Robot and or Scarlett Johansson playing the role of a usb stick but that’s not what anyone sane is suggesting.
A fork isn’t great for eating soup, neither is a knife required but that doesn’t mean they’re not incredibly useful eating utensils.
Try thinking of an LLM as a type of NLP or natural language processing tool which allows computers to use normal human text as input to perform a range of tasks. It’s hugely useful and unlocks a vast amount of potential but it’s not going to slap anyone for joking about it’s wife.
Even if LLM’s can’t be said to have ‘true understanding’ (however you’re choosing to define it), there is very little to suggest they should be able to understand predict the correct response to a particular context, abstract meaning, and intent with what primitive tools they were built with.
If there’s some as-yet uncrossed threshold to a bare-minimum ‘understanding’, it’s because we simply don’t have the language to describe what that threshold is or know when it has been crossed. If the assumption is that ‘understanding’ cannot be a quality granted to a transformer-based model -or even a quality granted to computers generally- then we need some other word to describe what LLM’s are doing, because ‘predicting the next-best word’ is an insufficient description for what would otherwise be a slight-of-hand trick.
There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of exaggerated hype around these models and LLM companies, but some of these advancements published in 2022 surprised a lot of people in the field, and their significance shouldn’t be slept on.
Certainly don’t trust the billion-dollar companies hawking their wares, but don’t ignore the technology they’re building, either.
Even if LLM’s can’t be said to have ‘true understanding’ (however you’re choosing to define it), there is very little to suggest they should be able to understand predict the correct response to a particular context, abstract meaning, and intent with what primitive tools they were built with.
Did you mean “shouldn’t”? Otherwise I’m very confused by your response
There’s no reason to expect a program that calculates the probability of the next most likely word in a sentence should be able to do anything more than string together an incoherent sentence, let alone correctly answer even an arbitrary question
It’s like using a description for how covalent bonds are formed as an explanation for how it is you know when you need to take a shit.
You are best off thinking of LLMs as highly advanced auto correct. They don’t know what words mean. When they output a response to your question the only process that occurred was “which words are most likely to come next”.
That’s only true on a very basic level, I understand that Turings maths is complex and unintuitive even more so than calculus but it’s a very established fact that relatively simple mathematical operations can have emergent properties when they interact to have far more complexity than initially expected.
The same way the giraffe gets its spots the same way all the hardware of our brain is built, a strand of code is converted into physical structures that interact and result in more complex behaviours - the actual reality is just math, and that math is almost entirely just probability when you get down to it. We’re all just next word guessing machines.
We don’t guess words like a Markov chain instead use a rather complex token system in our brain which then gets converted to words, LLMs do this too - that’s how they can learn about a subject in one language then explain it in another.
Calling an LLM predictive text is a fundamental misunderstanding of reality, it’s somewhat true on a technical level but only when you understand that predicting the next word can be a hugely complex operation which is the fundamental math behind all human thought also.
Plus they’re not really just predicting one word ahead anymore, they do structured generation much like how image generators do - first they get the higher level principles to a valid state then propagate down into structure and form before making word and grammar choices. You can manually change values in the different layers and see the output change, exploring the latent space like this makes it clear that it’s not simply guessing the next word but guessing the next word which will best fit into a required structure to express a desired point - I don’t know how other people are coming up with sentences but that feels a lot like what I do
LLMs don’t “learn” they literally don’t have the capacity to “learn”. We train them on an insane amount of text and then the LLMs job is to produce output that looks like that text. That’s why when you attempt to correct it nothing happens. It can’t learn, it doesn’t have the capacity to.
Humans aren’t “word guessing machines”. Humans produce language with intent and meaning. This is why you and I can communicate. We use language to represent things. When I say “Tree” you know what that is because it’s the word we use to describe an object we all know about. LLMs don’t know what a tree is. They can use “tree” in a sentence correctly but they don’t know what it means. They can even translate it to another language but they still don’t know what “tree” means. What they know is generating text that looks like what they were trained on.
It depends a lot on how we perceive “intelligence”. It’s a lot more vague of a term than most, so people have very different views of it. Some people might have the idea of it meaning the response to stimuli & the output (language or art or any other form) being indistinguishable from humans. But many people may also agree that whales/dolphins have the same level of, or superior, “intelligence” to humans. The term is too vague to really prescribe with confidence, and more importantly people often use it to mean many completely different concepts (“intelligence” as a measurable/quantifiable property of either how quickly/efficiently a being can learn or use knowledge or more vaguely its “capacity to reason”, “intelligence” as the idea of “consciousness” in general, “intelligence” to refer to amount of knowledge/experience one currently has or can memorize, etc.)
In computer science “artificial intelligence” has always simply referred to a program making decisions based on input. There was never any bar to reach for how “complex” it had to be to be considered AI. That’s why minecraft zombies or shitty FPS bots are “AI”, or a simple algorithm made to beat table games are “AI”, even though clearly they’re not all that smart and don’t even “learn”.
Even sentience is on a scale. Even cows or dogs or parrots or crows are sentient, but not as much as we are. Computers are not sentient yet, but one day they will be. And then soon after they will be more sentient than us. They’ll be able to see their own brains working, analyze their own thoughts and emotions(?) in real time and be able to achieve a level of self reflection and navel gazing undreamed of by human minds! :D
But also the people who seem to think we need a magic soul to perform useful work is way way too high.
The main problem is Idiots seem to have watched one too many movies about robots with souls and gotten confused between real life and fantasy - especially shitty journalists way out their depth.
This big gotcha ‘they don’t live upto the hype’ is 100% people who heard ‘ai’ and thought of bad Will Smith movies. LLMs absolutely live upto the actual sensible things people hoped and have exceeded those expectations, they’re also incredibly good at a huge range of very useful tasks which have traditionally been considered as requiring intelligence but they’re not magically able everything, of course they’re not that’s not how anyone actually involved in anything said they would work or expected them to work.
Zoom: “wE cAnT cOlAbOrAtE iF wErE nOt In PeRsOn. We NeEd EmPloYeEs To ReTuRn tO tHe OfFiCe.”
They have stiff competition but this has to be one of the most incompetent boners I have ever seen pulled by a major corporation. Stating very clearly to the entire world that you have no confidence in your own product. If Eric Yuan (Zoom’s CEO) wasn’t the principle shareholder he probably would have been fired out of a cannon by now.
A social network that was formed as a fork of lemmy, before lemmy had really entered the fediverse (tho they were planning to). Both Lemmy and Hexbear had communists among their founders, but the Hexbear devs found it more… Central to their objectives. When Lemmy federated, Hexbear didn’t. It planned to initially, but ended up being pretty satisfied of being a small, yet centralized social network, basically a communist Reddit. But the idea of joining the Fediverse appeared tempting once again with the boom that happened on Mastodon when the muskrat ate the bird, and to a greater extent when Reddit changed their API policy and lost a lot of the user’s trust, causing many redditors to move to Lemmy.
Hexbear devs then worked to essentially make it a Lemmy instance, but there were always disagreements about who to federate with. They first federated with Lemmygrad and Lemmy .ml. Lemmy .world quickly blocked them. They temporarily federated with sh .itjust .works, but this wasn’t well received on either side, so this was soon undone.
Ideology wise, pretty much everyone on Hexbear is some kind of communist. However, altho the “tankie”, pro-russia type is often seen, it’s not that homogeneous (there are even anarchist channels over there), arguably less than lemmygrad.
Everything you said was accurate except the pro Russia = tankie stuff. I just want to be able to say that the kulaks deserved and such without being tied to capitalist trash like Putin…
Yeah, I didn’t mean to say that all tankies are pro current Russia, but just that there is a specific type of tankies that is, and these are often the annoying ones.
I’ve actually yet to see anybody you’d call a tankie being pro Putin or pro current Russian government. What people are pro is Russia acting as a counter to NATO and facilitating multipolarity.
I think people are thrown off by anti NATO stance. I almost don’t blame people for confusing NATO opposition for Russia support, especially during on ongoing Russian invasion, which does seem to justify NATO’s existence. Nevermind NATO’s history of imperialist action, people are very tied up in the Ukraine war and are unwilling to cede any ground to anything that may appear even a little soft on Russia.
My issue with hexbearians was that in every single thread I saw them in they would do nothing but whatabout regardless of the context. I understand they may have good points about certain things and to their credit some had very well written and informative comments but most of the time they weren’t directly relevant to the topic. It could be a loud minority but it doesn’t change the fact it’s annoying to see huge threads of whatabout arguments all the time by them.
You know whataboutism isn’t an actual logical fallacy and was originally used in defense of British colonialism “well the IRA also does bad things” right?
Again, my point was that people should focus on themselves and what their countries are doing. Your “well the IRA also does bad things” is precisely the kind of deflection I’m arguing against.
In my view, having consistent moral standards is a prerequisite for having an honest discussion on any topic. If anything, the actual whataboutism is pointing fingers at other countries while refusing to acknowledge what your own country is doing. People should focus on fixing problems at home and holding their own governments accountable first and foremost because that’s where they have most agency.
This is what people who you accuse of whataboutism point out. Focusing on countries you don’t like and talking about how bad they are when your own country does the same things simply serves to deflect attention and to create the impression that your own society is somehow better and more enlightened. This is how the west often justifies the atrocities it commits.
To be fair one country was invaded by the other. It is entirely understandable to back the party that was invaded by the other nation especially when that nation has a recent history of imperialism.
Last I checked, what actually happened was that Ukraine was plunged into a civil war after US ran a coup in 2104 that overthrew the democratically elected government.
Russia was invited into the conflict by LPR and DPR which it recognized independence of. This follows the precedent NATO set in Yugoslavia where it recognized breakaway regions and intervened on their behalf.
I don’t need to edit anything, the LPR and DPR were every bit as legitimate as the regions that broke away from Yugoslavia. What exactly are you claiming is the difference between the two scenarios?
That’s a bold claim to make given neither region were their own nation or were historically Russian or Ukrainian.
Yugoslavia was formed if multiple countries untied by socialism. The LPR and DPR as breakaway units are not the sane and seem to have been very heavily influenced by Russia. That’s the same imperialistic Russia that keeps invading foreign lands to seize them since Putin was elected.
The political entity was created by the USSR. The nation has existed for centuries. Do you know the difference between a nation and a state? Would you deny that Kurdistan exists as a nation?
Which are abstractions themselves so we are in fact discussing the concept if a nation vs a state. Before 1917 people recognized an area called Ukraine populated by Ukrainian people. LDR and DPR do not have that history in fact the Russian element is there due to the legacy of racist policies of the USSR that wanted these areas to have a Russian dominated population so they moved them there.
The LDR and DPR aren’t nations like Ukraine has been for centuries and the attempt to cast them as legitimate breakaway areas is just Kremlin propaganda to justify traditional Russian imperialism.
You’re just engaging in sophistry here. LPR and DPR are two well defined regions of the current state known as Ukraine. This is exactly the same situation as Yugoslavia. Every argument you’ve made equally applies to regions of Yugoslavia that separated. Russia just followed NATO precedent intervening on the behalf of the regions whose independence was recognized by Russia. You can keep doing mental gymnastics here all you like, but that’s the reality of the situation.
No they aren’t the same, if they were the same you could find documentation about their history. For fucks sake if they were equivalent the regions and people would have names like Serbians did while Yugoslavia existed.
There no gymnastics being done on my part. You have just uncritically accepted the imperialist propaganda from the Kremlin. Weird that you are on Lemmy.ML and are overtly supporting fascism…
What are you even talking about here, you’re saying there is no history of the people who were part of Yugoslavia?
The only one uncritically accepting imperialist propaganda here is you buddy. You’re the one who is supporting literal self described fascist. Maybe do some self reflection on that.
No Im saying the DPR and ZLPR aren’t nations with people tied to that nation like Ukranians have been for centuries. Those areas were Ukrainian until the Soviets moved ethnic Russians there to make it Russian dominant.
Im not supporting any fascists but you are backing Putin who has an undeniable history of imperialism and fascism.
You’re just showing complete and utter ignorance of Slavic history here. However, even in your ramblings you admit that people currently living in LRP and DPR (which you evidently can’t spell even), are predominantly of Russian ethnicity and hence want to be part of Russia.
Im not supporting any fascists but you are backing Putin who has an undeniable history of imperialism and fascism.
You very clearly support a fascist regime that took power in a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014. Here’s western media reporting on your friends
Tell me more how you are the educated one when you are spitting fascist propaganda. The fact that people want to be part of Russia does not give Russia the right to invade and steal children.
While both nations have far right neo nazis only one government, Russia, has granted them authority and promotes fascism abroad.
Last I checked I didn’t. I don’t support the GOP. I’m not a fan of Putin or frankly any Russian government. I’m not a fan of Ukraine’s government either but they were clearly invaded as a result of Putin’s imperialistic desires.
Now if you support the GOP or the Kremlin you might be allied with fascists. There is a weird history of fascists being supported by Marxist-Leninists
No, Ukraine was invaded because of NATO expansion. In fact, Stoltenberg has now publicly acknowledged that Putin made clear to NATO in a draft treaty before the war that it could avert it if NATO agreed not to keep enlarging. But NATO rejected the offer.
Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
So maybe stop lying and stop supporting the fascist regime in Ukraine that your government installed there in a violent coup.
These are the people you are allied with, and if that doesn’t give you a pause then what else is there to say about you as a person www.youtube.com/watch?v=TojapQRUhzs
You’re literally the one who is supporting actual overt fascists here. I love how you still haven’t even acknowledged this fact. You are utterly morally bankrupt. Maybe go do a bit of self reflection on the fact that your views perfectly align with people who tattoo themselves in swastikas.
You mean like the founder of The Wagner Group? He has SS logos on his neck. It’s almost as if both sides have some fascists but only Russia has one in the highest office.
Last I checked the wagner group isn’t part of the Russian government, but keep on lying since that’s all you’ve been doing here this whole time. Show me a single actual Russian government official who claims to be a fascist. Meanwhile, entire Ukrainian political elite are openly fascist as well as all your nazi friends in US who support them. I’ve provided you with plenty of sources clearly showing this to be the case. Ukraine doesn’t have some fascists, it’s run by a fascist regime, and the fact that you won’t even acknowledge this says everything I need to know about you as a person. Zelensky being Jewish doesn’t mean anything. Next, thing you’ll tell me Israel isn’t a fascist apartheid state because it’s run by Jews. You are so lost.
You are allied with literal self described fascists and you openly champion their cause.
They aren’t part of the government they just are regularly hired by them, are staffed at the top levels with Kremlin loyalists and carry out the Kremlin’s goals.
Suuuure they totally aren’t Russian.
Again Putin himself is advocating fascism and all the fascists seem allied with Russia on this issue.
Maybe you are completely confused what fascism is? After all you are mentally deficient enough to buy into Leninism.
They’re a PMC, and fascism isn’t the ideology of the PMC. Meanwhile, official battalions like azov are openly fascist, and fascists are part of the actual government in Ukraine. The fact that you keep trying to equate the two shows that you’re an utterly morally bankrupt liar.
Also, nowhere does Putin advocate for fascism. Stop lying. I know what fascism is, but either you don’t or you just lie. And I’m done talking to you nazi. Bye.
This is really a non-sequitur but I have zero idea how people choose to upvote it downvote anymore. You and I were in agreement and somehow I got upvoted and you got downvoted? I don’t get it
There was an interesting writeup from someone on hexbear as to why they opposed the war in Ukraine. It was fascinating reading such a nuanced take on the conflict that completely ignored Russia’s imperialistic attitudes that Putin displayed from the moment he took office. It was really interesting reading someone who was really well informed to a point but seemed to not see past that point.
I don’t even really think it’s that they don’t see that point, it’s that they don’t want the US intervening in any more conflicts because the US always picks that side that’s closest aligned with their own capitalist/imperial goals, and the struggle for worker solidarity is the dominant dialectical struggle they’re interested in. If the US showed any interest in assisting a socialist project be successful, they might feel more comfortable with the US’s involvement, but that’s historically not been the case (nor would that make sense in that particular dialectical materialist worldview).
They’ve beefed with a few other instances they tried federating with too such as Lemmy.ee and lemmy.blahaj.zone. Their user base tends to be a bit more abrasive than most Lemmy instances, making federation controversial even among similarly minded instances such as lemmy.blahaj.zone
Ideology wise, pretty much everyone on Hexbear is some kind of communist. However, altho the “tankie”, pro-russia type is often seen, it’s not that homogeneous (there are even anarchist channels over there), arguably less than lemmygrad.
even the anarchists are pro soviet at least lol, I love my comrades
I’d buy winrar just because it has served me very well and all for free, for at least a decade even if I use mostly 7zip now. They earned that license fee
If you don’t want to spend as much time waiting for things to uncompress. Or if you want your compressed files to be smaller (and also compress faster).
In this context (IIRC) smart means “if this zip contains a single folder with contents, directly extract that folder, but if the zip contains files and/or folders, extract all that to a new folder named the same as the zip file”.
Some people zip folders while some people zip the files in a folder. Smart extraction just handles both automatically.
7zip doesn’t work well with win11. Read somewhere that the developer refuses to do something about it, but no idea. Went with nanazip, which is derived from 7zip
Seems to. MB3 and you have Extract which does a folder name and places them in that, or Extract Here which puts all the files in your current directory
There’s a difference between being antisemitic and anti Israel! People seem to forget these days. Being antisemitic because Israel is being shit is extremely stupid
I think it’s a strategy that used to work: call people anti-Semitic to get them to shut up. It worked after WW2 and the Holocaust but it doesn’t work anymore.
It’s not that they forget. You’re giving them too much credit. The reality is that being against many of the actions of a country is normal. People like Americans, like American movies, but are against many of the actions taken by the US military, the NSA, etc. People like Indians, but are against the actions of the Modi government. If you advocate against the policies of other governments you can get results. Your country can scale down its cooperation with them, or pressure them, or whatever. There’s always going to be some hatred of the country, hatred of the people of that country, hatred of the religion of the people of that country mixed in when the policies of any country are criticized. But, a reasonable person can focus on the main message.
By playing the “antisemitism” card, the Israelis who use it hope to insulate Israel from these normal kinds of criticisms. It’s really the only country that gets to play that kind of card, because it’s the only country founded in the immediate aftermath of a genocide, by the survivors of that genocide, and is the only place where Jews are a majority. They also get to pretend that any decision other than supporting Israel in everything it does is supporting the next genocide against Jews. The reality is that many of Israel’s actions are likely to encourage the next attempted genocide against Jews.
Yes but humanity has agreed that the term “anti semitic” specifically means “anti jewish”. Like how if you say “I could care less” everyone understands you meant “I couldnt care less”.
That’s also why it’s spelled ‘antisemitic’ versus ‘anti-Semitic’, to avoid the idea that it means against Semitic people but against Jewish people specifically, replacing the earlier term “Judenhass” (Jew-hatred) in the late 1800s.
Ma…ma… Marvel movies are mostly redundant bullshit without even a single relevant thought in them. Just like these mass-produced romcoms, same level. They will probably be the first movies written and produced by inferior AI soon and it won’t even make a big difference.
The worst part of Marvel movies is how they expect you to remember everything from every other Marvel movie and TV show going back to Iron Man in 2008. I gave up after a while. I can’t keep all of that in my memory and I should be able to skip the ones that are less interesting to me and not get confused in a movie that isn’t a sequel to those.
I’m a big One Piece fan. One piece has thousands of characters many with fleshed out back stories. They all feel fresh and unique and the universe is coherent. But marvel? Most if not all super heroes are interchangeable and the universe makes no sense.
Well I know nothing about One Piece, but the way they do it in Marvel is absurd. I was lucky I had Disney+ at the time and saw Wandavision or the Doctor Strange sequel would have made no sense. And it was shortly after realizing that when I gave up. I honestly don’t know why I stayed with it for so long.
That’s a perfectly valid criticism of most manga, One Piece included. Especially shonen manga. The “same-face” issue is part of the reason anime and manga have women with crazy hair colors. It’s easier to color code a character than give them a distinct face.
Ya know, I’m actually okay with that. Up to endgame it wasn’t really all that much. You had Ironman x3, GoG x2, Strange x1, Thor x3, Spiderman x1 (x2 if you want to watch the one right after endgame), Captain America x3, Avengers x3, Ant-Man x2, and Black Panther, all of which set you up for endgame. Thats… a grand total of 20 movies, plus the spiderman right after endgame.
Is that a lot? Sure, 40-50 hours. But let one company have a cool, big, tied together place in movies. I liked my invincible comic read. One book, straight through from beginning to end. I also liked when I read through the Marvel Ultimate comics, with about four or five of the serials that I was reading interweaving. I can’t think of any other setting that was tied together like that in movies. The closest you’d get would be the television types, with a few hundred episodes.
I’ll agree that the tv show styles were too much. I personally couldn’t even watch the first trial of those, the agents of shield, right? That first episode was just such terrible writing. I definitely don’t want to take that 40-50 hours (over 11 years, too, so that helps) and multiply by exponential scales.
My memory can’t handle the intimate details from 20 movies. That’s the problem. They make references to things in movies that happened a decade ago and expect people to remember them. So sure, tying them all together can be fun- if you can do it without expecting people to get the constant references. Honestly, I spend half the time in Marvel movies wondering what the fuck they’re talking about lately.
Here’s a mnemonic technique that I have found works: Nothing about Marvel movies is worth remembering.
You’re watching the dramatic equivalent of that retouched Ecce Homo painting, a mass media product constructed by Hollywood on top of the palimpsest of the creative output of young Jewish men trying to come to grips with feelings of powerlessness in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Nothing much of the original remains, and it’s not worth looking at, beyond remarking at its absurdity.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.