nihiltres

79499 pts · September 7, 2011


I'm a lurker, hear me roar.

I can accept that there's a new modern common meaning for "AI", and even that it's the one you're suggesting, but there are a zillion people who say "it's not actual AI" who are *objectively* incorrect because of the academic meaning.

18 hours ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Blaghart seems confused. LLMs are ML; in theory an LLM could be continuously trained, but training needs an objective test of what a “correct” answer is … hence the hunger for “correct” data from humans. The fusion reactor model can refine itself with automatic continuous training because the “correct” state of the reactor is a given.

Also, because it’s widespread misinformation, a trained generative model doesn’t need a dataset; the training “discovers” the algorithm by fitting it to the data.

1 day ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The AI label technically applies to the field, with models falling into the machine learning (ML) subset; the label is less lying than paltering (misleading with the truth), exploiting the fact that most people don’t understand the field but get their ideas about it from science fiction. Sci-fi usually features AGI or ASI, and LLMs are not remotely that even though they are AI.

The way I like to frame it is that the code that might make a videogame NPC walk into a wall is also technically AI.

1 day ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Hah! I’m actually mostly ignorant of R; my SO’s the one who uses it. I’m more on the CS side of things.

1 day ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Once they’ve consented, the disrespectful treatment is respectful again. :)

1 day ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It’s really a multivariate distribution with length and girth each flaccid and erect. People have everything from the micros to the magnum dongs, and it ought not matter where someone falls, but some people have preferences and many are weird or judgy about it. My position is that if you’re not either fucking someone, considering fucking someone, or acting as their doctor, you oughtn’t care about their junk, and if you are doing one of those things then that person deserves respectful treatment.

1 day ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

The extremely wealthy must be taxed to the point where they must be as intelligent and hard-working as they claim to be simply to *stay* wealthy, with those taxes dedicated to eliminating the suffering of poverty, starting with minimum standards for food, housing, and healthcare that everyone should be guaranteed. This is because it’s easier to make money when you already have money, and harder to make money when you don’t, which moves things slowly towards neofeudalism if unchecked. Fuck that.

1 day ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

A mammonth, but only once in a blue sirmoon.

2 days ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

“You are no aristocrat, goodbye.”

2 days ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you flip it upside down it kinda looks like an elephant.

2 days ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Somehow from the thumbnail it looked to me like a pair of robotic knees. But it also looks pretty rad interpreted that way.

3 days ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Ah, fair, seems you’re being more precise than I expected with “imagine”.

I could be hypophantastic rather than fully aphantastic, but my experience is that I can kinda … construct an artificial memory? I don’t “see” what I’m imagining but I can have an *idea* of how it’d look by “remembering” each element.

4 days ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Inability to visualize ≠ inability to conceptualize.

5 days ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, it actually is AI, because that’s the name the field’s been called for decades. It’s just *also* used for marketing because apparently a zillion people *only* know it from science fiction AGI (AGI doesn’t exist yet and is unlikely to for many years), which is ironically how you’re making the mistake.

Whatever it’s called, it’s a damn shame, because the usefulness in those few cases where it’s useful is absolutely fucking eclipsed by the “slop machine” uses.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I think it’s just what happens when wealth becomes too concentrated. Once one has enough money, they can accidentally—or intentionally?—move the market in ways that destabilize the economy just a little bit, and perhaps, especially if it’s intentional, profit from it like shaking coins from a piggy bank as the market moves back and forth.

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fuck off with that attitude; at best it’s defeatism and in practice it’s just discouraging the very people who need to turn out.

IF they try to cancel or otherwise Fuck Around with elections then they’ll quickly Find Out one way or another, because that’s a bright fuckin’ line. Just a fact.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Unfortunately, the plagiarism’s very likely entirely legal; the disconnect is largely at what constitutes a derivative work. US law requires “substantial similarity”: https://w.wiki/D3wb . Some models *have* output infringing works by that standard, of course, but it’s not “by default”.

It’s going to be a nightmare to untangle copyright law for the world of AI: tweak the laws letting AI get away with it and the changes’ll likely also hurt reasonable activities that sidestep copyright.

(IANAL)

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Unfortunately they’re kinda saying the same words with different meanings.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I’d take it a step further and say that even a competent person needs to *actually do* the necessary review.

2 weeks ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I’m divided on the usefulness; there’s so much evidence of people blindly accepting sloppy code that will quickly become technical debt that I’m not sure about the gains in those areas where it’s actually useful.

2 weeks ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

#10

2 weeks ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where’s Willy?

2 weeks ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It’s not worth “poisoning” your work; poisoning isn’t remotely effective until well beyond the threshold of looking like crap to humans, it’s often easily removed, and unlikely to have any significant effect on training even if not. Plus it’s ridiculously computationally expensive (many times over more expensive than generating an image), and, ironically, some poisoning software’s known to have plagiarized code from an open-source image generator.

Sorry for the bummer; it’s a shitshow.

2 weeks ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It’s presumably breaking the record for (humanoid) robots, which is less important because it’s *easier* to build a faster drone that rolls or flies, or a *sessile* robot that does useful work. The primary purpose of humanoid robots is to intimidate human workers.

2 weeks ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

We want to be a sovereign nation, AND we are one.

2 weeks ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bees? Release bees? I’m sure you mean “empty septic tanks”.

2 weeks ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(cont’d) then to align that union’s laws, constitution, etc. with Canada’s, and *then* to pursue joining more seriously in various ways once stable.

The catch is that the most polarized US state is Wyoming at ~70% Republican, and so even California has a huge amount (~35%?) of local crazy. You’re going to need to fix that somehow even if you leave the worst of the US behind.

Sorry to be a downer; for what it’s worth while I’m Canadian I’m in MD and have US citizenship; I feel the pain too!

2 weeks ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That’s still basically just “protectorate with no votes” but decreasingly over time … so it becomes a question of rate: either it takes 30 years to get full representation, and you end up with whole generations of people annoyed at having poor representation in Parliament, or it takes 10 and every party caters to the newcomers knowing that they will represent over half the population soon enough.

The realist answer is for “adopted” states to form a “Cascadia”, (1/?)

2 weeks ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0