yes
nimpnin
joined 1 year ago
but iirc the bottom half has been sort-of half debunked
Any source for this? It's literally just random words. Just pick from a large enough list and you're good.
Charity is not getting us out of the climate crisis
Not really suprised. Being nice and polite is makes you more persuasive, and LLMs are definitely better at that than the average person.
Regardless, the implications of this can turn out to be dire.
The new BMI, which is more accurate for very tall and very short people, gives you 28 instead of 30.6. Which is overweight and not obese. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
It’s never been so easy to download music. Soulseek, yt-dlp, torrents for older stuff, spotify downloader websites etc. I still have spotify but I started growing my local music collection a few years ago. Considering canceling my spotify subscription.
Modern thought not only relies on thought built upon other people, it relies on trusting textbooks, data aggregators like weather apps, google search results, bus route apps, wikipedia, forum posts, etc. etc.
I don’t think it’s ungenerous at all to question whether are LLMs really any different in this regard. You take in information from an imperfect automated source, just as we’ve done for a really long time, depending on the definition.
The no thought is truly independent is also a bit of a strawman. The point was, the more complex technology you have, the more the same ideas spread and thought is harmonized (which is good in some ways, standardization makes things easier).
Depends on the circumstances. After one year of wfh in a 18m2 apartment, I happily go to the office 4-5 days a week, even though I am not required to.
Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of
thinking through a chain of logic instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning
not made in good faith. You don't engage with the point I'm making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.
Also, hearing "How so? What’s your alternative assertion" after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.
Well I first replied to that first comment. Then people started making completely different claims and the point got lost in the sauce.
Edit: why should I take the time to formulate my thoughts well if you have demonstrated that you don’t give even the slightest hint of good faith to understand what I’m saying?
If you pick 4 random words, the attacker would still need to brute force through (hundreds of?) billions of word combinations. That’s the point.