51–60 of 66 posts
I clicked on the article hoping to find information on potential new cognitive skills humans will need to learn to differentiate Large Language Model (LLM) hallucinated facts from real facts, but unfortunately the article doesn't touch upon this. Reading the comments it seems likely that the article is itself LLM-generated blogspam, in which case it won't be aware of the potential for hallucinated facts. I was thinki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps instead of using the word hallucination we could use average-context. When the LLM doesn't have enough information it computes some average of the information available in the wrapping context, so hallucination is some form of wrong result because of computing averages in a context. But the context could also be wrong.
Have there been papers published about what happens to the user experience when average-context is tightly constrained to small weighting ranges or eliminated altogether, and the model just throws an "insufficient data" error?
I clicked on the article hoping to find information on potential new cognitive skills humans will need to learn to differentiate Large Language Model (LLM) hallucinated facts from real facts, but unfortunately the article doesn't touch upon this. Reading the comments it seems likely that the article is itself LLM-generated blogspam, in which case it won't be aware of the potential for hallucinated facts. I was thinki…
Really this is just postmodernism; the general collapse in epistemic certainty leading to viewing reality purely in terms of text. "Il n’y a pas de hors-texte" (Derrida); there is nothing outside the text. GPT would have to agree with Derrida, because it knows nothing but text. It has "all" the text, or at least all the text that could be found and fed to it, but nothing outside that.
(and likewise it really accelerates "Sokal hoax" questions!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is anything Marxist about the current "Liberal Arts Education"... As well as, at least in my observation a lot of people I know who graduated from philosophy, and arts are good critical thinkers. I am not sure this is a fair statement.
Try to ask your friends some very difficult question, like "what is the definition of woman?". I am saying that current education does not give people tools to use LLM and AI. They will spend most of time on problems like "not being racist" or "looking for systemic bias". Others without this baggage will run circles around them, and eat their lunch.
I really enjoy learning with CGPT. I usually start by asking a question on a level that I'm familiar with and then follow up with questions that come up as I read the response. This way you tailor the learning process to your specific knowledge level and it is so much faster than reading a tutorial (which is often miss-aligned with your knowledge level) or googling for answers one by one (and filtering all irrelevant…
How do you deal with the UI of ChatGPT slowing down to a crawl after two or three "messages" exchanged? Or am I the only one who had this issue consistently for a month now, across multiple devices? (Note: I'm not talking about the model being slow to respond, but rather the animation of it typing its response letter by letter quickly starts slowing down, until eventually it hangs , sometimes mid-sentence.)
Alternate hypothesis: Life on this planet has evolved from primitive organisms whose only goal is to propagate through spacetime (in time = survive, in space = reproduce), as this is the de facto only initial goal you may encounter serendipitously, when the trait we judge is... in fact propagation though spacetime (i.e. to exist, you need to know how to keep existing). In the quest of adapting better to our environme…
This doesn't make sense when applied to current technology. Can you say that because we made cars we didn't develop to run faster? And because we have hospitals, genes that aren't optimal for a climate still exist? Since the start of humanity, we made tools to make things easier for us, we don't fish with our hands anymore for a reason.
As for genes and medicine, medicine DOES change which genes are selected for survival. Sometimes quite literally, such as caring about type 1 diabetics, or in-vitro fertilization, and I doubt you actually have something objective to say here to reject that.
This doesn't imply we need to have no hospitals. But it helps to be aware of the holistic effect of the environment we create for ourselves, because it selects us in ways we don't fully comprehend.
Recently I read an article about rising child obesity in the US, and the recommendation is surgery and better "weight loss drugs". I'll leave it as an exercise to you where this path leads.
Making tools is great. I love that we make tools. I love to make tools, myself. I program, like many here. But the plot twist in that story is that at some point the tools become better, do more of the job, and more, and eventually... the tools don't need us to do the job. They just need us to make them. But as these tools get advanced, eventually we start using tools to make the tools (no modern CPU is designed by hand, BTW). So what happens in the end? Our role decreases, and decreases, and a new loop forms of tools making tools.
And suddenly, we're unnecessary.
And do you know when this moment where we're not necessary comes? When we outsource our "core competency". This is the same situation that led to IBM selling its business to their outsourcing manufacturer, Lenovo, and how DELL almost lost its business. It starts with "we don't need to assemble it, we'll assemble in China". Then "we'll make some more parts in China". Then "we'll design it in China too". And suddenly you're not doing anything, except slapping a logo on it. You're useless. You outsourced your core competency.
Humanity's core competency is intelligence. If AI is better at this... our only role in "the human civilization" is slapping a "human" name on it. There's nothing human left IN it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make sense when applied to current technology. Can you say that because we made cars we didn't develop to run faster? And because we have hospitals, genes that aren't optimal for a climate still exist? Since the start of humanity, we made tools to make things easier for us, we don't fish with our hands anymore for a reason.
Your examples are all physical. Delegating physical action comes natural because we don’t define ourselves by it. We are not strong and not fast. We do not care either, so long as we have tools to help us gain advantage. Cognition however is what defines our very soul. Being human is intricately linked with it in a way that the physical is not. Stephen Hawkings could be an example of that. Ceding cognition presents a…
But now I'm starting to realize the author may have had deeper reasons to introduce this into the story. Because maybe he saw far into the future, and realized that a future with AI has no humans in it, at all.
Alternate hypothesis: Life on this planet has evolved from primitive organisms whose only goal is to propagate through spacetime (in time = survive, in space = reproduce), as this is the de facto only initial goal you may encounter serendipitously, when the trait we judge is... in fact propagation though spacetime (i.e. to exist, you need to know how to keep existing). In the quest of adapting better to our environme…
Alternate hypothesis: Life on this planet has evolved from primitive organisms whose only goal is to propagate through spacetime (in time = survive, in space = reproduce), as this is the de facto only initial goal you may encounter serendipitously, when the trait we judge is... in fact propagation though spacetime (i.e. to exist, you need to know how to keep existing). In the quest of adapting better to our environme…
See following sf story about life, AI and DNA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34836772