Not_mikey @ Not_mikey @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

163

Joined

2 yr. ago

the primary motivation behind this decision was. Obviously it wasn’t building public housing

That doesn’t mean the intent behind the CCP policy isn’t good, well intentioned, or positive

Can you see how I'm confused, do you think the primary intent is for public housing, or for some political drama?

It could be some political drama, we'll never know what goes on in the HK city council, but if you read the article you'll see this site wasn't selected so much as it's lease was up and the city would be taking back control of it and they needed to do something with it. Yeah some high official could've been waiting for the course to come back into city hands so they could build public housing over it and snub a rival, but I think it's far more likely that the property fell into the cities hands and they decided to turn it into affordable housing because that's what the city needs, no sinister or alterior motive is needed.

the CCP can't possibly do something in the interests of the people, their must be something dastardly behind this.

Your just as bad as the tankies who think u.s. aid is just a CIA front, or the Republicans who think welfare is just Democrats keeping black people poor and dependent.

The u.s government and CCP aren't just full of villains trying to oppress people, both have the capacity for empathy and compassion and do exercise it often.

The above reply could still be true. If you run this sort of hashtag analysis on other countries you could probably find a bunch that the platform is "favoring" .

Hell you could uno reverse this whole argument and say meta is boosting western aligned content. Claiming Instagram is some sort of unbiased real base for social media is a bad premise.

Oh definitely, I don't see it getting to SF before the bright line opens and I don't see it getting to la in the next decade. But the bright line is using more tried and tested technology and methods in a significantly less populated area on an established corridor, while hsr is building from scratch through the heartland of California.

It'll take a long time but it will eventually get done, because there is still a will, not a strong one, to get it done. Most Californians recognize the immense value it will bring and will keep pushing for it.

Oh definitely, I don't see it getting to SF before the bright line opens and I don't see it getting to la in the next decade. But the bright line is using tried and tested technology and methods, while hsr is building from scratch.

It'll take a long time but it will eventually get done, because there is still a will, not a strong one, to get it done. Most Californians recognize the immense value it will bring and will keep pushing for it.

Hsr isn't dead, it's still being actively built, employing thousands of people, still has broad public support and just got a shit ton of funding from the feds. It's over budget and delayed yes but so was the original shinkansen because bootstrapping that kind of project and industrial knowledge is hard.

Huge tourist hub and destination for a lot of flights. Need lines from both the northeast and Midwest to capture a majority of the air traffic going there.

Speaking as a former midwesterner who would drive down to Florida with their family for vacations this would be a god send, I'm sure most east coasters would agree too.

degeneration might be the ONLY way to prevent Faceboom

So we should just start posting furry porn to try and scare them off?

Can't you / shouldn't you be wearing a rain coat or outer shell if you think you might get wet?

I get there are some situations where its impossible to keep underlayers dry, like if your on a boat or Backcountry camping, but for the majority of people and situations some layers of cotton or synthetic under a shell should be fine.

That study is like giving a written test to an illiterate adult, seeing them do worse than a child and saying they aren't intelligent or innovative. Like I said earlier intelligence is multi-faceted, and chatgpt excels at rhetorical, conversational and other types of written intelligence. It does not, as that study shows, do well in spatial manipulation, that doesn't mean it's not intelligent. If you gave that same test to a paralyzed blind person with little to no concept of spatial reality they'd probably do just as bad. If you asked them to compose a short story or an essay they might be good at it because that's where they're capabilities lye. That short story could still be innovative in its composition and characters, and could be way better than anything a child wrote.

You have to measure different types of intelligence with different tests. If you asked chatgpt and a set of adults and children to write a short story about a wholey new subject chatgpt would beat most of the children and probably some of the adults.

And if that short story is about a new subject matter completey out of its training set what/who is it plagiarizing from? You could say it's taking common tropes, themes and story elements from other stories, but that's fundamentally what a lot of writing and culture is. If that's plagiarism then you should be more worried about the marvel franchise as it's a plagiarism machine that has way more cultural impact.

Screw ball golf, disc golf though solves all it's problems

1. Can play in almost any environment so no habitat destruction needed. Might have to clear a few trees or brush in dense forest but otherwise mostly keeps forests intact
2. No elitism or arrogance. It's one of the cheapest sports there is, just requires a couple $15 discs and most courses are free and are part of parks. Not much maintenance is needed on the course.
3. Easier to pick up. Most people can at least throw a disc 10 yards or so after a couple tries. Also more forgiving if drunk or high in that way.
4. More interesting to watch /play. Courses usually have obstacles like trees and the flight path of discs has a lot of lateral movement so if your good/lucky you can weave it through the obstacles.

It can answer questions as well as any person. Just because you may need to check with another source doesn't mean it didn't answer the question it just means you can't fully trust it. If I ask someone who's the fourth u.s. president and they say Jefferson they still answered the question, they just answered it wrong. You also don't have to check with another source in the same way you do with asking a person a question, if it sounds right. If that person answered Madison and I faintly recall it and think it sounds right I will probably not check their answer and take it as fact.

For example I asked chatgpt for a chocolate chip cookie recipe once. I make cookies pretty often so would know if the recipe seemed off but the one it provided seemed good, I followed it and made some pretty good cookies. It answered the question correctly as shown by the cookies. You could argue it plagiarized but while the ingredients and steps were pretty close to some I found later none were a perfect match which is about as good as you can get with recipes which tend to converge in the same thing. The only real difference between most of them is the dumb story they give at the beginning which thankfully chatgpt doesn't do.

The 7th grader and plagiarism comment make me think you haven't played with them much or really tested them. I have had it write contracts, one of which I had reviewed by a lawyer who only had some small comments, as well as other letters and documents I needed for my mortgage and buying a home. All of these were looked over by proffesionals and none of them realized it was a bot. None of them were plagiarized too because the parameters I gave it and the output it created were way too unique to be in its training set.

I'm not saying it doesn't encode some of its training data, I'm saying it's not just encoding its training data. It probably does "memorize" a bunch of trivial facts from its training data and regurgitate them when asked. I'm saying that's not all they are and that's not what makes the intelligent, their ability to also answer questions outside their training data is.

Auto complete is not a lossy encoding of a database either, it's a product of a dataset, just like you are a product of your experiences, but it is not wholly representative of that dataset.

A wind tunnel is not intelligent because it doesn't answer questions or process knowledge/data it just creates data. A wind tunnel will not answer the question "is this aerodynamic" but you can observe a wind tunnel and use your intelligence to process that and answer the question.

Temperature and randomness don't explain hallucinations, they are a product of inference. If you turned the temperature down to 0 and asked it the question " what happened in the great Christmas fire of 1934" it will give it's best guess of what happened then even though that question is not in it's dataset and it can't look up the answer. The temperature would just mean that between runs it would consistently give the same story, the one that is most statistically probable, as opposed to another one that may be less probable but was pushed up due to randomness. Hallucinations are a product of inference, of taking something at face value then trying to explain it. People will do this too, if you tell someone a lie confidently then ask them about it they will use there intelligence to rationalize a story about what happened.

If LLMs were just lossy encodings of their database they wouldn't be able to answer any questions outside of there training set. They can though, and quite well as shown by the fact you can give it completely made up information that it can't possibly have "seen" and it will go along with it and give plausible answers. That is where it's intelligence lyes and what separates it from older chatbots like Siri that cannot infer and are bound by the database they pull from.

How do you explain the hallucinations if the llm is just a complex lookup engine? You can't lookup something you've never seen.

All inference is just statistical probability. Every answer you give outside of your direct experience is just you infering what might be the answer. Even things we hold as verifiable truth that we haven't experienced is just a guess that the person who told it to us isn't lying or has some sort of proof to there statement.

Take some piece of knowledge like "Biden won the 2020 election" me and you would probably agree this is the truth, but we can't possibly "know" it's the truth or connect it to some verifiable experience, we never counted every ballot or were at every polling station. We "know" it's the truth because more people, and more respectable people, told us it was and our brain makes a statistical guess that their answer is right based on their weight. Just like an LLM other people will hallucinate or bullshit and come on the other side of that guess and assert the opposite and even make up stuff to go along with that story.

This in essence is what reasoning is, you weigh the possibilities of either side being correct, and pick the one that has more weight. That's why science, an epistemological application of reason, is so heavily reliant on statistics..

This is not how LLMs work, they are not a database nor do they have access to one. They are a trained neural net with a set of weights on matrices that we don't fully understand. We do know that it can't possibly have all the information from its training set since the training sets (measured in tb or pb) are orders of magnitude bigger than the models (measured in gb). The llm itself is just what it learned from reading all the training data, just like how you don't memorize every passage in a book you read, just core concepts, relationships and lessons. So if I ask you " who was gatsbys love interest?" You don't remember the line and page of the text that says he loves Daisy, your brain just has a strong connection of neurons between Gatsby, Daisy , love, longing etc. that produces the response "Daisy". The same is true in an LLM, it doesn't have the whole of the great Gatsby in its model but it too would have a strong connection somewhere between Gatsby, Daisy, love etc. to answer the question.

What your thinking of are older chatbots like Siri or Google assistant which do have a set of preset responses mixed in with some information from a structured database.

computer scientists, neurologists, and philosophers can't answer that either, or else we'd already have the algorithms we'd need to build human equivalent A.I.

I think your mixing up sentience / consciousness with intelligence. What is consciousness doesn't have a good answer right now and like you said philosophers, computer scientists and neurologist can't come to a clear answer but most think llms aren't conscious.

Intelligence on the other hand does have more concrete definitions that at least computer scientists use that usually revolve around the ability to solve diverse problems and answer questions outside of the entities original training set / database. Yes doing an SAT test with the answer key isn't intelligent because that's in your "database" and is just a matter of copying over the answers. LLMs don't do this though, it doesn't do a lookup of past SAT questions it's seen and answer it, it uses some process of "reasoning" to do it. If you gave an LLM an SAT question that was not in it's original training set it would probably still answer it correctly.

That isn't to say that LLMs are the be all and end all of intelligence, there are different types of intelligence corresponding to the set of problems that intelligence is solving. A plant identification A.I. is intelligent for being able to identify various plants in different scenarios but it completely lacks any emotional, conversational intelligence, etc. The same can be said of a botanist who also may be able to identify plants but may lack some artistic intelligence to depict them. Intelligence comes in many forms.

Different tests can measure different forms of intelligence. The SAT measures a couple like reasoning, rhetoric, scientific etc. The turing test measures conversational intelligence , and the article you showed doesn't seem to show a quote from him saying that it doesn't measure intelligence, but turing would probably agree it doesn't measure some sort of general intelligence, just one facet.

This seems like circular reasoning. SAT scores don't measure intelligence because llm can pass it which isn't intelligent.

Why isn't the llm intelligent?

Because it can only pass tests that don't measure intelligence.

You still haven't answered what intelligence is or what an a.i. would be. Without a definition you just fall into the trap of "A.I. is whatever computers cant do" which has been going on for a while:

Computers can do arithmetic but they can't do calculus, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can do calculus, but they can't beat someone in chess, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can beat us in chess, but they can't form coherent sentences and ideas, that requires true intelligence.

Ok computers can form coherent sentences but ...

It's all just moving the goal post to try and preserve some exclusively human/organic claim to intelligence.

There is one goalpost that has stayed steady, the turing test, which llm seems to have passed, at least for shorter conversation.

Some drugs (alcohol, opiates, meth) do fuck up your brain with long term consistent use associated with addiction, but most people don't fall into that unless they have some sort of severe external stress or genetic predisposition. You can see this with alcohol which despite its acceptance by society is one of the most harmful drugs out there, but most people who consume it do so in relative moderation.

Drug prohibition fucks ups society way more than drugs can fuck up your brain. It creates a police state that targets the poor and minorities. It gives money to cartels and gangs that cause violence. It doesn't even stop drug use, those who want it can still get it, it just makes drugs less safe as theirs no quality control leading to adulterants and an incentive to make overly concentrated substances like fentanyl, which probably wouldn't exist without prohibition.