ech

joined 1 month ago
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

You're not the boss of me, now!

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The 40k fascism cosplayers already made "god emperor" a thing. Might as well go the whole mile.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

No, it doesn't. Would you say a calculator "lied" to you if it output an incorrect answer? Is your watch "lying" to you when it's out of sync? No, obviously not. They're just wrong, not "telling falsehoods".

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

Their "definition" is wrong. They don't get to redefine words to support their vague (and also wrong) suggestion that llms "might" have consciousness. It's not "difficult to say" - they don't, plain and simple.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

Except these algorithms don't "know" anything. They convert the data input into a framework to generate (hopefully) sensible text from literal random noise. At no point in that process is knowledge used.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

but like calling it a lie is the most efficient means to get the point across.

It very much doesn't because it enforces the idea that these algorithms know anything a or plan for anything. It is entirely inefficient to treat an llm like a person, as the clown in the screenshots demonstrated.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago

Correct. Because there is no "pursuit of untruth". There is no pursuit, period. It's putting words together that statistically match up based on the input it receives. The output can be wrong, but it's not ever "lying", even if the words it puts together resemble that.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago

Demanding the algorithm apologize is off the charts unhinged. It's amazing that people this stupid have achieved enough to fail this badly.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 69 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

They're trying to insinuate that the accusations on them are of the same legitimacy of those they've been throwing at everyone for decades.

If their claims are rebuked as baseless, they'll call the claims against them baseless as well. If the claims against them are said to be substantiated, they'll point to their claims and suggest the same. It's the "tails I win, heads you lose" of a political scheme.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Step 1. Input code/feed into context/prompt

Step 2. Automatically process the response from the machine as commands

Step 3. Lose your entire database

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 80 points 2 weeks ago (29 children)

Both require intent, which these do not have.

view more: ‹ prev next ›