EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,804

Joined

2 yr. ago

how could they tell it was truly a new thing

Sure, there is a chance the exact question had been asked before, and answered, but we are talking remote possibilities here.

that any description provided for it didn’t map it to another object that would behave similarly when stacking.

If it has to say 'this item is like that other item and thus I can use what I've learned about stacking that other item to stack this item' then I would absolutely argue that it is reasoning and not just "predicting text" (or, again, predicting text might be the equivalent of reasoning).

Stacking things isn’t a novel problem.

Sure, stacking things is not a novel problem, which is why we have the word "stack" because it describes something we do. But stacking that list of things is (almost certainly) a novel problem. It's just you use what you've learned and apply that knowledge to this new problem. A non-novel problem is if I say "2+2 = 4" and then turn around and ask you "what does 2 + 2 equal?" (Assuming you have no data set) If I then ask you "what's 2 + 3?" that is a novel problem, even if it's been answered before.

I mean, I can’t dismiss that it isn’t doing something more complex, but examples like that don’t convince me that it is. It is capable of very impressive things, and even if it needs to regurgitate every answer it gives, few problems we want to solve day to day are truly novel, so regurgitating previous discussions plus a massive set of associations means that it can map a pretty large problem space to a large solution space with high accuracy.

How are you convinced that humans are reasoning creatures? This honestly sounds like you could be describing 99.99% of human thought, meaning we almost never reason (if not actually never). Are we even reasonable?

Why would I answer your question when you ignored mine?

Yes, it's obviously capitalism's fault and not the fault of the corrupt leaders in their fascist, totalitarian state.

The US are morally bankrupt and don’t inspire the world anymore.

Another perfect example of a story about another country, and someone in the Lemmy comments just having to shit on America. It's amazing. Virtually without fail.

You don't think South Korea has far more expertise when it comes to North Korea than Ukraine?

I listened to a podcast (This American Life, IIRC), where some researchers were talking about their efforts to determine whether or not AI could reason. One test they did was asking it to stack a random set of items (one it wouldn't have come across in any data set, plank of wood, 12 eggs, a book, a bottle, and a nail. . .probably some other things too) in a stable way. With chat gpt 3, it basically just (as you would expect from a pure text predictor) said to put one object on top of another, no way would it be stable.

However, with gpt 4, it basically said to put the wood down, and place the eggs in a 3 x 4 grid with the book on top (to stop them from rolling away), and then with the bottle on top of that, with the nail (even noting you have to put the head side down because you couldn't make it stable with the point down). It was certainly something that could work, and it was a novel solution.

Now I'm not saying this proves it can think, but I think this "well it's just a text predictor" kind of hand-waves away the question. It also begs the question, and based on how often I hear people parroting the same exact arguments against AI thinking, I wonder how much we are simply just "text predictors."

I need a name for the law that, without fail, if there is an article posted to Lemmy about something bad happening in a country that isn't the US, someone in the comments will shit on the US.

The way I see it is that he's selling himself to a bunch of rubes as the one who is looking out for the little guy. Which is absurd, but the idea that Harris may have had a service job at some point, showing that she actually comes from being one of the regular joes, that really calls into question who actually understands them better. So of course he has to lie and say it didn't happen.

It was a campaign stunt to poke fun at Harris and to make him appear more "one of the regular joes." If you think that making it look like he could get a job at McDonald's after his presidency would somehow prove to voters he is fit for the office... Dear God political analysis is not for you.

I'm with you on "fuck McDonalds" but this is an incredibly dumb gotcha. They're dumb enough, let's not try to out stupid them.

You know you're reading a quality publication when they use an exclamation mark at least once per paragraph.

You're right. Being rich might open up more types of spontaneity, but this just sounds like an excuse to not do anything.

It's shocking to me when people say that reddit moderators are more overbearing than here. They'll literally ban you for how you vote here. Lol

Read the post?

Where on reddit was as bad as .ml? Other than maybe the Donald or conservative?

Agreed. It could absolutely be that this person just likes to complain. But this whole "talking about banning things you don't thing belong in this community is really just talking about it too" is a ridiculous "gotcha."

It's a meta discussion about the direction they want the sub to take.

Sitting down and discussing something that you don't like, so you can avoid it more in the future, is not the contradiction so many people in this sub seem desperate to make it.

https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/23/sit_or_stand_how_should_men_pee_108761.html

It only sounds like a contradiction if you take "pro-life" literally. In fact, I find this hard to understand at all if you simply just listen to pro-lifers.

Let me be clear, I'm about as firm a supporter of a woman's right to choose as they come. I'm also adamantly against the death penalty. Do you find this position to be contradictory?

However, the general position of "pro lifers" does not contradict this at all, pretty obviously. They think that a fetus is a child that hasn't been born yet, and because it hasn't been born, it's completely innocent. So you have no right to take it's life. However, if some person in life has done something in life that removes that innocence, they believe sometimes that rises to such a heinous level that they must be permanently and irrevocably removed from society.

There are other glaring contradictions in their position, like not wanting to provide support to that innocent baby once it has come into the world, but this is clearly not one of them.

I think this has long since debunked and it's actually the other way. At the very least it's inconclusive.