[deleted]
Bored of It
381–390 of 507 posts
Re: Bored of It
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a problem for me. When you're 60 or 70, you will wish to have a body of a 25 year old. Dying early from rotting teeth is normal in nature, yet you probably brush, floss, and go to dentist.
I don't know how to reconcile this point of view, which I understand, with quotes like "science advances one funeral at a time," which I also understand. I understand the individual desire for advancing anti-aging techniques, but it also seems to contain extremely real risks of stagnating our sciences & societies. I can't tell whether anti-aging science is ethical or not.
That's just a desire for a legal way to murder people (by waiting). It's entirely understandable, but we'll have to find another way.
Re: Bored of It
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI is optimized for producing text that sounds like it makes sense and is helpful. This is not a guarantee that the text it produces is a correct explanation of the thing you are asking about. It’s a mental trick like a psychic reading tea leaves.
I'm so tired of this caveat. It's generally pretty obvious if the explanation makes sense. And you can locate the original paper(s) as well to verify. And you know what? My PhD friends get things wrong all the time too. I need to verify what they say as well. "This is not a guarantee"? You're right. Nothing is a guarantee, but a lot of things are awfully helpful.
I’m tired of “Well people get things wrong, too.” as a defense of these systems. They should stand or fall on their own merit.
And yes, reducing everything in the world - nothing matters. Everything is relative. What even is truth, amirite?
If that’s our slogan for the future then it is hella depressing.
Re: Bored of It
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Nobody's forcing me to "take the AI at its word". It's the easiest thing to verify. And I've got enough of the social side of scholarship already. Professors don't need me emailing them with questions, and I don't need to wait days for replies that may or may not come.
How do you verify it or connect it with other papers if it gives you a summary instead of linking to the paper itself?
You literally ask it for the paper(s) and author(s) associated, put them into Google Scholar, and go read them. If it hallucinates a paper title, Scholar will usually find the relevant work(s) anyways because the author and title are close enough. If those fail, you Google some of the terms in the explanation, which is generally much more successful than Googling the original query. If you can't find anything at all, then it was probably a total hallucination, and you try the prompt a different way. That probably happens less than 1% of the time, however.
I mean, it's all just kind of common sense how to use an LLM.
Re: Bored of It
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
That puts you way deep in the wishful thinking territory, again there is 0 rational connection between LLMs and immortality, especially if you're already on the way out
That's why I said "chance". And no, there's no zero rational connection. LLMs and other types of neural nets are already demonstrating they can solve complex tasks. Unless there's some intrinsic barrier to how intelligent they can become, we should surpass human level intelligence within years, maybe a decade. Once you surpass human level intelligence, you can scale scientific research by orders of magnitude. Heck, A…
How many intelligent are they?
Re: Bored of It
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good point. You could equally well argue that the spherical cow “ideal” 100% marketing shows you exactly the right product right as you need it. And then shuts the hell up!
Except when a company buys an ad it's to sell Their product , not just A product.
Sure. But there are different ways of selling. I've been lucky to avoid sales, but…
I think I could tolerate selling a product I truly believed was useful, and would improve the situation of those buying it, and where I felt free to recommend alternatives in situations where my product was a bad fit.
I couldn't tolerate selling a product where I had to trick people into buying it, knowing that there was a better alternative and a good chance they would regret the choice.
Running an ad to entice or trick people into buying your product in a massive avalanche of sales that ultimately leaves a bad taste is a strategy. Running an ad to accurately target people who would genuinely benefit from your product, and attempting to build credibility and trust over years is also a strategy. Of course, it's always somewhere between the two, but it's not clear which end the 100% spherical cow lives on :-)
Re: Bored of It
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you verify it or connect it with other papers if it gives you a summary instead of linking to the paper itself?
You literally ask it for the paper(s) and author(s) associated, put them into Google Scholar, and go read them. If it hallucinates a paper title, Scholar will usually find the relevant work(s) anyways because the author and title are close enough. If those fail, you Google some of the terms in the explanation, which is generally much more successful than Googling the original query. If you can't find anything at all,…
Fair enough, if you're using it as a better way to find relevant papers I have no complaints.
I've mainly seen it used for getting answers without needing to or even being able to access the original source.
Re: Bored of It
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm so tired of this caveat. It's generally pretty obvious if the explanation makes sense. And you can locate the original paper(s) as well to verify. And you know what? My PhD friends get things wrong all the time too. I need to verify what they say as well. "This is not a guarantee"? You're right. Nothing is a guarantee, but a lot of things are awfully helpful.
I’m tired of “Well people get things wrong, too.” as a defense of these systems. They should stand or fall on their own merit. And yes, reducing everything in the world - nothing matters. Everything is relative. What even is truth, amirite? If that’s our slogan for the future then it is hella depressing.
> They should stand or fall on their own merit.
And they do. They stand on the fact that they save time, raise productivity, and assist in learning. That's the merit.
Demanding absolute perfection as the only measure of merit is bonkers. And if that's the standard you hold everything in your life too, you must be pretty disappointed with the world...
Re: Bored of It
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much time do we need? Industrial invention used to be judged by actual usefulness. If we take space exploration as an example, at every stage, we have actual usefulness for what the technology so far was able to accomplish. Same with computing. But now we're two years after the first release to the general public of LLMs and no one can provide an actual, reliable use case for it. Instead, it's mostly about destro…
> How much time do we need? A few years will start to show if what AI is producing is a lability, or if it is just fine, methinks. If you haven't felt any pains from its legacy cruft by that point, it isn't apt to magically appear a long way down the line. > If we take space exploration as an example, at every stage, we have actual usefulness for what the technology so far was able to accomplish. When Archytas propel…
Let's ignore the hype and marketing and truly consider LLM as the first stage of "something". The truth is that I've heard a lot of speculation, but no inching towards any of the speculated objective on a practical scale.
For anything else, any such first stage was usually constrained on a very small scale while the glaring issues were ironed out. Now a lot of us are being forced to tolerate what is essentially a prototype or toy in tools and systems that were fine before.
Re: Bored of It
#390This is excellent satire. It's like a Rorschach test for the commenters.
Would Rorschach have been bored of it?