ggppjj @ ggppjj @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

343

Joined

2 yr. ago

OK, what is the better metric? I'm not trying to gotcha really, but I use tap and pay and my banking apps very incredibly often and would not consider a phone where I couldn't, and suspect that it is a significant driving factor for others as well.

Define many as a percentage of ~8 billion+ humans with smartphones or thereabouts

Those bastards! Lmao, glad you got it.

They killed your channel!

That's called a sneakernet. Although, if you're talking actual pigeons, you may be interested in RFC1149.

I'm gonna teach you a lesson on improv: "yes, and".

...

A crucial part of your statement is that it knows that it's untrue, which it is incapable of. I would agree with you if it were actually capable of understanding.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

A false statement would be me saying that the color of a light that I cannot see and have never seen that is currently red is actually green without knowing. I am just as easily probably right as I am probably wrong, statistics are involved.

A lie would be me knowing that the color of a light that I am currently looking at is currently red and saying that it is actually green. No statistics, I've done this intentionally and the only outcome of my decision to act was that I spoke a falsehood.

AIs can generate false statements, yes, but they are not capable of lying. Lying requires cognition, which LLMs are, by their own admission and by the admission of the companies developing them, at the very least not currently capable of, and personally I believe that it's likely that LLMs never will be.

Ask chatgpt, I'm done arguing effective consciousness vs actual consciousness.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

What do you believe that it is actively doing?

Again, it is very cool and incredibly good math that provides the next word in the chain that most likely matches what came before it. They do not think. Even models that deliberate are essentially just self-reinforcing the internal math with what is basically a second LLM to keep the first on-task, because that appears to help distribute the probabilities better.

I will not answer the brain question until LLMs have brains also.

We did, a long time ago. It's called an encyclopedia.

If humans can't be trusted to only provide facts, how can we be trusted to make a machine that only provides facts? How do we deal with disputed truths? Grey areas?

It is incapable of knowledge, it is math, what it says is determined by what is fed into it. If it admits to lying, it was trained on texts that admit to lying and the math says that it is most likely that it should apologize using the following tokenized responses with the following weights to probabilities etc.

It apologizes because math says that the most likely response is to apologize.

Edit: you can just ask it y'all

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

I strongly worry that humans really weren't ready for this "good enough" product to be their first "real" interaction with what can easily pass as an AGI without near-philosophical knowledge of the difference between an AGI and an LLM.

It's obscenely hard to keep the fact that it is a very good pattern-matching auto-correct in mind when you're several comments deep into a genuinely actually no lie completely pointless debate against spooky math.

I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it's very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.

I think it's more convenient to their overall design of modern Windows, IIRC by default it'll install the running version of Windows to a hypervisor also. For their purposes, for the majority of users, there would be little to no performance losses.

That was where it was uploaded first, the takedowns were for it being later hosted on azure cloud services

I believe the reason Fedora does this is to satisfy their regulatory goals, I don't know the full story behind why they have their own seemingly broken build of OBS on their repo but I would imagine it has something to do with a codec's worldwide licensing rights or similar. I believe the approach that should be taken is that Fedora should stop offering this package in a broken state as compared to continuing to do so, but that's an outsider opinion.

They put their repo first on the list. Packages will default to Fedora's repo if available. You may specify which version you want, if you both know that it's happening and know that the package you want in particular is available at both.

I really again do not know how this could possibly be the fault of another repository. Fedora is making decisions for ther distro that circumvent FlatHub, this is not FlatHub's fault.