191–200 of 202 posts
I've never seen an argument like this that, if true, wouldn't also apply to the cognitive offloading we do by relying on culture, by working with others, or working with the artifacts built by others.
Cognitive offloading via culture has many forms and many of them are not sustainable at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently some EU citizens are already wary traveling to the US for various reasons. Lets see. "Is it safe to travel to the US as an EU citizen of arab descend?" GPT: Yes it's safe. GEMINI: Yes but... [gave a few legitimate warnings] I wouldn't give that recommendation to an arab fellow citizen right now. Thought I am cautious in such matters and I hate to travel anyway. So I am biased. But general concerns aren't to…
Have you considered the possibility that it is in fact safe to legally travel to the US? No doubt there are individual instances of mistreatment, but how many of the ~70 million international visitors to the US each year encounter problems? Even if thousands of people are subject to mistreatment, that still works out to Is this is an example of AI actually supplying incorrect information, or an example of AI not supp…
The international travel into the US has also declined. A clear statement from potential visitors, partly attributed to political climate and safety.
This is an nuanced sentiment of people, derived from a complex, dynamic situation.
In fact, the LLMs carry preconceived views. That is the whole point of the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, this is a huge concern, and we are still in an age where most content on the internet isn't ai generated yet. What about 10 years from now? We have many instances of people writing posts on reddit or uploading videos and blogs using AI generated text. What happens when that is a significant percentage of content? I recently saw a video discussing a researcher who published a fake scientific article…
> I recently saw a video discussing a researcher who published a fake scientific article about a fictitious disease, with bogus author names, even a warning IN the article itself that stated "This is not a real disease, this article is not real" (paraphrasing) but still AI ended up picking up this article and serving information from it as if it was a real disease. Isn’t a lot of pretraining done by chopping sources…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said she didn't claim to be an expert. I said you consider yourself an intellectual. Don't twist my words for your false arguments. I wanted to hear from you that you are just slamming her for the sake of it. I got multiple answers. You again go on an pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage just for the win. You don't contribute to the discussion, you erode it. It's nuts that I use the pronouns of the author, and…
I am not sure without additional clarification, but by “pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage” you seem to be referring to the long passage I pulled verbatim from the notes section of the author’s post. I am not sure what argument you are making about sexism but it seems like we are not having the same conversation. We disagree that “not claiming to be an expert” is sufficient cover for “apparently not having read…
You insinuated that I've accused you of sexism. Which is simply not true, not even implied. To make it very clear: You are harsh without reason and hide behind intellectual gibberish.
If it is your opinion she is doing it wrong and I give her too much credit, that's fine. You don't have to prove it, it's sufficient to say it. I am happy to disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure without additional clarification, but by “pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage” you seem to be referring to the long passage I pulled verbatim from the notes section of the author’s post. I am not sure what argument you are making about sexism but it seems like we are not having the same conversation. We disagree that “not claiming to be an expert” is sufficient cover for “apparently not having read…
You are actively misunderstanding me. Of course I can differ your text from quoted text. Is that really the way you see disagreement? Others got you wrong in the most miserable way? You insinuated that I've accused you of sexism. Which is simply not true, not even implied. To make it very clear: You are harsh without reason and hide behind intellectual gibberish. If it is your opinion she is doing it wrong and I give…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are actively misunderstanding me. Of course I can differ your text from quoted text. Is that really the way you see disagreement? Others got you wrong in the most miserable way? You insinuated that I've accused you of sexism. Which is simply not true, not even implied. To make it very clear: You are harsh without reason and hide behind intellectual gibberish. If it is your opinion she is doing it wrong and I give…
Thank you for disclosing that your entire purpose was ad hominem, it makes it easier to understand why it was difficult to pin down your criticisms of my arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She didn't claim to be an expert, so she doesn't have to satisfy any "standards". You consider yourself intellectual but you don't apply benefit of the doubt? You neither offered reasonable correction, only a thin bun with a lot of beef.
Let’s not avoid the problem by being disingenuous. The below, to you, does not qualify as trying to be an intellectual? The author skips over 150 years of engagement with Peirce and tries to go straight back to the source but fails to locate any actual reason to do so: > In the research phase of this article, I came to the conclusion that existing system models are insufficient as they do not describe the process of…
so i am not entirely sure what you mean with "trying to be an intellectual", to me it sounds like a personal attack tbh and a quite cynic one.
I wanted to preventively write about all the concepts i have looked at because i wanted to prevent that people get hung up on the form and stop discussing about the content the the core message of my post.
As i wrote i don't see that "150 years of Peirce" have produced a model that is similar to what i am trying to say here.
You apparently take a offence in whatever you are offended and i want to give you a chance to speak with me directly about whatever you seem to think i have missed under the precondition that you try to actually engage with my text and don't hand wave it in a cynical fashion like you did until now.
I have looked, as i wrote, at Peirce and although he describes theories that are similar to the end effects of the DDS with AI-skew, it still is something completely different.
Besides that i am saddened that you seem to put form over content and that you did not really engage with the blog post itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what actually happens is we have formalized processes and can externalize them. Even if I believe that is what happens in 10% of uses of AI, it doesn't excuse what happens with the rest. Many people can not do mental math anymore and still more question why we need to learn math at all in the first place when we have simple calculators. "When will I ever use XYZ?" is a common refrain. AI is currently developed…
I argue that those people didn't forget mental maths in the last 1-2 years. They never managed them, as a consequence of flawed education, lack of practice, and so. Could AI be blamed for many things? Yes of course. But the plain ole boring enshittification and the general dumbing down definitely did not start with chatgpt.