|
Using his previously formulated Second Law of Infodynamics, Vopson claims that the decrease of entropy in information systems over time could prove that the universe has a built-in “data optimization and compression,” which speaks to its digital nature. He just saw the same black cat again
And by "evidence" he means a full word salad of bafflegab. I'm certain that Saint Carl Sagan would have something to say to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I'm certain that Saint Carl Sagan would have something to say to him.
Or Frederick Pohl
Kent Sharkey wrote: He just saw the same black cat again
Or a green wall
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
...like "Who are you!? Get out of my office!"
...and
"Melvin? What sort of name is that? Your parents didn't want you did they?"
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait for this crackpot idea's fad to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
“Which episode of Gilligan’s Island was about mind reading?” As long as we have more knowledge about syndicated sitcoms, the AIs will never win
|
|
|
|
|
After skimming the article, its central point seems to be that LLMs can't reason. They merely do a great job summarizing and regurgitating the data that they've scanned, so it's hard to know how accurate they are. This hardly comes as a surprise given the many documented, deranged responses from various LLMs.
|
|
|
|
|
The dirty little secret is that LLM is that training... it is essentially stacking the deck and then managing to pull an ace... maybe > 50% of the time.
But it's still "luck". We've rigged the game by telling it what we're most likely talking about when we say x.
This is a fundamental issue when it comes to contexts where it absolutely shouldn't be allowed to be wrong (like handing it its own reigns).
Ask it if a football is a sphere 
|
|
|
|
|
See if can make the following make some sense.
the LLMs currently GENERATE output, not reference it. Meaning that they have been done to simulate human thinking in a fashion.
Like if you ask someone give me a sentence. Person has to figure out context, they know what a sentence should be, but then fill in the content to form the sentence and either coherent of wtf.
Some people are great at this and many are not. but if ask give me a sentence BASED on a shakespear play, that narrows down the content, and possibly the top of the mind words would (most populare that person knows) would steer the sentence.
add receite a line from shakespear, that is more specific. Can person recall a line verbatum, or they use context they know how a shakepsear sentence is done to mix recall and construction.
the LLMs, negate reference and just jumble all the data, and spit out something.
Hence the lack of factual data.
Contrast with google index which links to specific data.
Mix the two and then suggestion comes into play which is the next step. Load a LLM with your domain data and someone can ask, give me a wedding dress with nice pattern, and will write "this one has recommendations for late spring, and here is the link"
With copywrite issues making that direct refernce, unless for webpages is currently a challenge on mass, unless individuals, which is what the LLMs are pushing out creators to make
|
|
|
|
|
The domain data thing you bring up at the end is why I think general AI driven by LLM isn't coming anytime soon and if it does, we should probably smash it with as giant and hard a hammer as we can find.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's one way to handle the tech skills shortage: IT functions are increasingly being delivered and maintained by hybrid pros with one foot in the business and the other in technology. "The horror! The horror!"
If that isn't inspiration to get ahead of "citizen developers" on AI, I don't know what might be.
Of course, it's probably also inspiration for early retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, this is a good thing.
Getting everyone more involved needed to have happened a long time ago.
Everyone should be a programmer. Not really, but you should probably know a thing or two.
I think you look at many things, compromises, hacks, scams, cambridge analytica, "bad" AI...
So much would not have the possibility of ever being so bad if people just knew a little bit more in general about tech.
|
|
|
|
|
jochance wrote: So much would not have the possibility of ever being so bad if people just knew a little bit more in general about tech.
You overestimate the human race... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Aligned interest of self preservation is only generally reliable, and only if people recognize there's any threat to begin with.
We're boiling frogs because we're dumb as frogs.
|
|
|
|
|
In this episode of "How to make Windows 11 more annoying," Microsoft is bringing new Start menu ads to all users. If you start up the ads, they'll never stop
With apologies to Mick and Keef
|
|
|
|
|
"Every time a Start menu ad appears, a devil gets its wings" - It's A Miserable Life
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this article reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Over half of organizations feel that their cybersecurity and cloud skills are lacking, according to the 2024 Technical Skills Report by Pluralsight, a company that provides upskilling resources. Judging from all the hacks lately, I think they might be on to something
|
|
|
|
|
This is the story of how Google Search died, and the people responsible for killing it. They found him
A little long, but amusing in the volume of vitriol (and I'm sorry for those offended by the strong words he uses)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: (and I'm sorry for those offended by the strong words he uses)
No need to be it. If someone can get offended, he / she can stop reading after the first he / she finds
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I shifted to DuckDuckGo years ago, and it sounds like I shifted right as Google started self-destructing.
|
|
|
|
|
So did I. However, about once a month on average I try a search with few results and I resort to google. I try very hard to avoid that.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Barely a mention of how Google Search censors results, and here I was naively thinking it would be one of the main points.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Barely a mention of how Google Search censors results
Like they censor all of the rest of the results: by making them impossible to find! 
The whole article was about it!
|
|
|
|
|
Q: Where do you hide the dead body on the internet?
A: On the second page of Google Search results.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
