technocrit @ technocrit @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

310

Comments

4,490

Joined

1 yr. ago

If only the dems had had 4 years to do something...

I don't think y'all are disagreeing but maybe this sentence is somewhat confusing:

If you think LLMs doesnt think (I won’t argue that they arent extremely dumb), please define what is thinking,

Maybe the "doesnt" shouldn't be there.

LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns

Ah still rolling out the old “stochastic parrot” nonsense I see.

Ah still rolling out the old "computers think" pseudo-science.

I have used LLMs to get some work done and… guess what, it did the work!

Ah yes the old pointless vague anecdote.

What psychological hazard have I fallen for exactly?

Promoting pseudo-science.

Overall D. Neither interesting nor new nor useful.

Another similar article that's really good:

The LLMentalist Effect: how chat-based Large Language Models replicate the mechanisms of a psychic’s con

The difference between reasoning models and normal models is reasoning models are two steps,

That's a garbage definition of "reasoning". Someone who is not a grifter would simply call them two-step models (or similar), instead of promoting misleading anthropomorphic terminology.

ICYMI: A.I. is a Religious Cult with Karen Hao

The funny thing about this "AI" griftosphere is how grifters will make some outlandish claim and then different grifters will "disprove" it. Plenty of grant/VC money for everybody.

Cars are horses. How do you feel about statement?

It's just the internet plus some weighted dice. Nothing to be afraid of.

Sure, these grifters are shady AF about their wacky definition of "reason"... But that's just a continuation of the entire "AI" grift.

This would be a much better paper if it addressed that question in an honest way.

Instead they just parrot the misleading terminology that they're supposedly debunking.

How dat collegial boys club undermines science...

There's probably alot of misunderstanding because these grifters intentionally use misleading language: AI, reasoning, etc.

If they stuck to scientifically descriptive terms, it would be much more clear and much less sensational.

Yeah I often think about this Rick N Morty cartoon. Grifters are like, "We made an AI ankle!!!" And I'm like, "That's not actually something that people with busted ankles want. They just want to walk. No need for a sentient ankle." It's a real gross distortion of science how everything needs to be "AI" nowadays.

It's hard to to be heard when you're buried under all that sweet VC/grant money.

Peak pseudo-science. The burden of evidence is on the grifters who claim "reason". But neither side has any objective definition of what "reason" means. It's pseudo-science against pseudo-science in a fierce battle.

Just because something makes sense intuitively to one person, that doesn't mean it makes sense scientifically.

They're probably not testing anything further because they can't even define their terms.

bad data

Can you define this? The authors/grifters call it "toxic data" but never define that either.

Yes, it's interesting how grifters constantly pump out these phony results based on pseudo-science.

Fresh "AI" pseudo-science for a monday morning.

These grifters never even define "bad/toxic data". It's just 4chan ffs.

I haven't seen this in my browser. I think I'm using the default at lemmy.dbzer0.com.