NounsAndWords @ NounsAndWords @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

570

Joined

2 yr. ago

This would explain the other article I saw about a US-Clooney $20 billion arms deal.

These people are so fucking stupid....

Gotta go fast!

-Ancient Middle Eastern Philosopher, probably

No clue? Somewhere between a few years (assuming some unexpected breakthrough) or many decades? The consensus from experts (of which I am not) seems to be somewhere in the 2030s/40s for AGI. I'm guessing accuracy probably will be more on a topic by topic basis, LLMs might never even get there, or only related to things they've been heavily trained on. If predictive text doesn't do it then I would be betting on whatever Yann LeCun is working on.

Perhaps there is some line between assuming infinite growth and declaring that this technology that is not quite good enough right now will therefore never be good enough?

Blindly assuming no further technological advancements seems equally as foolish to me as assuming perpetual exponential growth. Ironically, our ability to extrapolate from limited information is a huge part of human intelligence that AI hasn't solved yet.

GPT-2 came out a little more than 5 years ago, it answered 0% of questions accurately and couldn't string a sentence together.

GPT-3 came out a little less than 4 years ago and was kind of a neat party trick, but I'm pretty sure answered ~0% of programming questions correctly.

GPT-4 came out a little less than 2 years ago and can answer 48% of programming questions accurately.

I'm not talking about mortality, or creativity, or good/bad for humanity, but if you don't see a trajectory here, I don't know what to tell you.

This is very much the type of case that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

This is the sort of smartass thing I would try right before getting bludgeoned to death.

And now I want to know the deep meaning behind all of those Chinese knockoff tee shirts that I thought were just poorly translated.

I’m silly, there isn’t even a wolf.

Classic human hallucination

The training data...

Probably somewhere around the time they realized referring to themselves as "actual women" was not a particularly inclusive, or kind, look.

"very often" is hyperbole, but if you've never had/heard of that discussion I would be surprised. But I don't think "men are misunderstanding the question" is a crazy take.

"who would win in a fight" and "who would you feel more threatened by" are by no means two "random" subjects, they are very closely related in theme and in most situations the answers would be interchangeable. And the conflation of the two closely related topics of conversation was my entire point.

I only take on gross work, as per rhyming conventions gross work is your gross worth.

...........

Sure.

The original meme is about women feeling they are less threatened by a bear than a strange man, the bear might leave them alone or not be aggressive where a man would be more likely to. That men can be a threat in different ways.

Separately men very often discuss what animals they could beat in a fight. This results in a misunderstanding/disconnect between "who would you feel less threatened by" and "who would win in a fight", which I agree is not what the original meme of women "choosing the bear" is about, but it is a very similar dynamic that results in men explaining that you won't win a fight against a bear. Which, again, is not the point of the original meme indicating a feeling that a bear might be less likely to harm or threaten you, which is why it results in people talking past each other. (Kind of like right now...)

And I believe you missed the words "appearing to imply" and my point completely.

Yeah, but Cheetahs can be way bigger than you expect, up to 160 pounds. I think if it can build up enough speed and has the chance to pounce you're gonna have the wind knocked out of you before you can do much.

Which is why framing the concept in a context that is parallel to one already very familiar to men (what animal is a bigger threat) has caused such misunderstanding.

is it rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the argument is men have been having very serious discussions for probably millenia about what animals they could and could not beat in a fight. And it is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass. Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I also want you to know you can't beat a bear in a fight, but will gladly discuss what animals you might win against.

What about a Cheetah?

Hey I found this cool post from that guy you're quoting.