lunarul @ lunarul @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

555

Joined

2 yr. ago

I did not say companies should have no liability for publishing misinformation. Of course if someone uses AI to generate misinformation and tries to pass it off as factual information they should be held accountable. But it doesn't seem like anyone did that in this case. Just a journalist putting his name in the AI to see what it generates. Nobody actually spread those results as fact.

Their product doesn't claim to be a source of facts. It's a generator of human-sounding text. It's great for that purpose and they're not liable for people misusing it or not understanding what it does.

It's otter awareness week, so I guess it's working.

Whole Foods has been using paper bags for years. And they don't charge for them either.

I prefer to buy books to own. But books are expensive, so if a particular book feels like it's not something worth the money to keep, I just borrow it from the library instead. That's literally money saved for me. Yeah, you could argue that if the library wouldn't have been an option then maybe I wouldn't have bought the book at all, so no difference there, but it's still the difference between reading the book for free or not reading the book at all.

I go to the library every week with my kids. We usually have 20-30 books checked out at a time. 5 books per week is nothing for a whole family.

If you're talking about straight lines, then yes, that's how you define a convex shape. If any uninterrupted path can be taken, then the OP shape does satisfy the condition.

Edit: just read the other comments and I see the problem was that you thought the internal angle shown for reference on how the shape was built is part of the shape. It's not, just the thicker lines define the shape shown. The little crossmarks that show equal sides are also not part of the shape.

Not sure what that's supposed to help with. I'd be even more uncomfortable if my steak had eyes and made eye contact than when a person does it.

Make a large enough model, and it will seem like an intelligent being.

That was already true in previous paradigms. A non-fuzzy non-neural-network algorithm large and complex enough will seem like an intelligent being. But "large enough" is beyond our resources and processing time for each response would be too long.

And then you get into the Chinese room problem. Is there a difference between seems intelligent and is intelligent?

But the main difference between an actual intelligence and various algorithms, LLMs included, is that intelligence works on its own, it's always thinking, it doesn't only react to external prompts. You ask a question, you get an answer, but the question remains at the back of its mind, and it might come back to you 10min later and say you know, I've given it some more thought and I think it's actually like this.

Then this shape does meet the definition

Exactly. As the mandatory sexual harassment and money laundering trainings have taught me repeatedly, if the company knows about it and doesn't do anything, they're equally liable (and in many cases even if they don't know about it). So stopping inappropriate behavior is in their interest.

Remember to look into his eyes

I don't know if it's some neurodivergence or if other introverts feel the same way, but that is something I personally find very difficult and uncomfortable and I can't hold eye contact for more than a second or two at a time. What feels natural to me is to look at a person's mouth when they talk.

Pear and gorgonzola is a typical combination.

They are effective, but in the other direction. I wouldn't be surprised if they're funded by fossil fuel companies.

Somewhere on the vertical axis. 0 on the horizontal. The AGI angle is just to attract more funding. We are nowhere close to figuring out the first steps towards strong AI. LLMs can do impressive things and have their uses, but they have nothing to do with AGI

That sounds like the definition for convex shape, not the general definition for a shape

I also disagree with the original comment you replied to. I was just responding to the part I quoted. I agree most specialists in a field don't know how to explain things to non-specialists and I agree it's important to have people who know how to explain things in layman terms, I jusy don't think it's relevant if those people are also the ones doing the research or not.

and that they're not the people doing the research itself...

I don't think that's relevant. People like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene have also done great at explaining science to the general public.

My company saved so much money by going fully remote. They were practically begging us to go fully remote years before the pandemic started, but there were too many people still attached to office culture (honestly I was one of them, I didn't have enough space where I lived at the time for a dedicated office and I had toddlers running around and interrupting all the time). But as soon as lockdowns came, my company seized the moment and permanently closed our main office and half of our second office (they still kept a smaller office for visitors and for the occasional on-site meetings and events). The rent alone was in the $1m/year range, we got free breakfast and lunch, fully stocked snack cabinets, unlimited coffee, drinks on tap, etc. They don't have to pay for any of that anymore.