![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
It’s a great narrative that happens to justify a power grab by the judicial branch; probably the least democratic of the three branches.
It’s a great narrative that happens to justify a power grab by the judicial branch; probably the least democratic of the three branches.
Can’t really answer the expense trade-off until you look at concrete use cases, something general AI is allergic to…
Certain types of content. But YouTube’s own existence started because people made content without licensing rights.
Yeah, warning labels just make people dumber and less safe somehow.
Detecting an LLM is a skill.
Ever heard of the Turing test? Ever since AIs could pass it it became not a thing.
In place of the Turing test we have a new test that informs us whether an individual can properly identify a stochastic parrot
But it’s also very gay, so it’s probably worth it.
But to think that our government, should it become
communistliberal, should be allowed to kill people in order to maintain asocialist or communistliberal or capitalist society
Seems to me the real objection should not be the ideology but the existence of any system that must murder the people it governs in order to continue to govern.
everything we say is the purest truth possible!
People obsessed with purity will think like that.
Automation suites exist and they are very much tuned to the individual apps. It seems giving ML an OCR readout of a page is not enough for it to know what it should do (accurately). We have had a training set for “booking flights on a browser” for about 6 years now and no one has figured out how to have it disrupt automated testing: https://miniwob.farama.org/
Yeah, very ironic that deleting misinformation is equated to deleting accurate information.
I’m providing explicit examples of compilers doing “the stuff we want it to do”. LLMs do what the want 50% of the time and it still needs modifications afterwards. Imagine having to correct a compiler output and calling that compiler “useful”.
That’s a distinction without a difference. The code is useful because we can reason how it was made and we can then make deterministic changes. Try using a compiler that gives you a qualitatively different result each time it runs even though the inputs are the same.
technology develops exponentially, while humans are … static
I have yet to see a self-improving technology that does not require adaptive human intelligence as an input.
Compilers are deterministic and you can reason about how they came to their results, and because of that they are useful.
I don’t use corporate social media anymore, is Facebook actually taking on misinformation now?
Big brain PDF tells the judge it is okay because the person in the picture is now an adult.
First day of job training is to keep the one machine running that keeps the place from exploding.
Happy? I’ll settle for dignity.
This doesn’t seem to be working as intended. We have “originalists” who turn that concept on it’s head and are explicitly a political project.