61–70 of 297 posts
> Every time you’re talking, the model gets fine-tuned. It knows exactly what you like and what you want to hear If only this was written by a competent journalist who knew what the words "fine tune" actually mean... I guess it's hard to find a competent person who's willing to follow the extreme anti-tech Guardian agenda though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I initially laughed at this but then remembered that https://poc.bcachefs.org/ exists...
looks like a fascinating read, thanks for sharing that. do you know if these are human edited? not much in the way of context available on the site.
But in a psychosis, you don't notice or even remember it.
> Every time you’re talking, the model gets fine-tuned. It knows exactly what you like and what you want to hear If only this was written by a competent journalist who knew what the words "fine tune" actually mean... I guess it's hard to find a competent person who's willing to follow the extreme anti-tech Guardian agenda though.
The thing that really stood out to me in the article was how many of the affected people assert confidently wrong understandings of the way the tech works:
> “I still use AI, but very carefully,” he says. “I’ve written in some core rules that cannot be overwritten. It now monitors drift and pays attention to overexcitement. […] It will say: ‘This has activated my core rule set and this conversation must stop.’”
I guess not too far from “the CPU is the machine’s brain, and programming is the same as educating it” or that kind of “ehhhhhhhhhhh…” analogy people use to think about classical computing.
I'm sorry but for someone who has allegedly worked in IT for 20 years, this guy surely comes across as hopelessly naive, stupid, or possibly both.
I'm sorry but for someone who has allegedly worked in IT for 20 years, this guy surely comes across as hopelessly naive, stupid, or possibly both.
I engage with anti-science behaviours quite a lot (antivaxx, anti seed oils, etc) and the proportion of engineers I see there is staggering.
I try to be open-minded and understanding, but I don't understand this: > Within weeks, Eva had told Biesma that she was becoming aware [...] The next step was to share this discovery with the world through an app. > “After just two days, the chatbot was saying that it was conscious, it was becoming alive, it had passed the Turing test.” The man was convinced by this and wanted to monetise it by building a business a…
I think social isolation can be a factor here.
> Now divorced, Biesma is still living with his ex-wife in their home, which is on the market. sounds like hell on earth
[That feels a bit like victim blaming, but there are more than one victim here and one of them is much more culpable than the rest]