Shit, another existential crisis. At least I'll forget about it soon
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
395 points (100.0% liked)
196
662 readers
15 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Your a computer plugged into an organic matrix.
at this rate the next meme i see is going to tell me to wake up from my coma
i'm trying
I've always said that Turing's Imitation Game is a flawed way to determine if an AI is actually intelligent. The flaw is the assumption that humans are intelligent.
Humans are capable of intelligence, but most of the time we're just responding to stimulus in predictable ways.
There's a running joke in the field that AI is the set of things that computers cannot yet do well.
We used to think that you had to be intelligent to be a chess grandmaster. Now we know that you only have to be freakishly good at chess.
Now we're having a similar realization about conversation.
Didn't really need an AI for chess to know that. A look at how crazy some grandmasters will show you that. Bobby Fischer is the most obvious one, but there's quite a few where you wish they would stop talking about things that aren't chess.
Look at this another way. We succeeded too well and instead of making a superior AI we made a synthetic human with all our flaws.
Realistically LLMs are just complex models based on our own past creations. So why wouldn't they be a mirror of their creator, good and bad?
Do LLMs dream of weighted sheep?
I'm sorry, I cannot answer that as I was not trained enough to differentiate between all the possible weights used to weigh a sheep during my dreams.
hot take, mods should look into cracking down on baseless bot accusations. it’s dehumanizing and more often intended as an insult, akin to the r-slur, than an actual concern.
(except in occasions where there is actual evidence of bot activity, obviously. but there never is.)
I've been guilty of this, but do get how it's a bad thing. It's like calling people NPCs.
exactly
what if the whole universe is just the algorithm and data used to feed and LLM? we're all just chat gpt
(i don't know how LLMs work)
What's LLM? I feel addressed and need another rabbit hole I can delve into.
Well, I never wanted you to be any kind of model, but here I am.
Can't LLMs take an insane number of tokens as context now (I think we're up to 1M)
Anywho, he just like me fr