What will it take until people get it through their thick skulls that ChatGPT isn't intelligent, doesn't learn and is a tool that can only generate plausible gibberish.
Using the same tools to detect such gibberish will give you more gibberish.
Garbage in, Garbage out has been true since the difference engine, it's just that today the garbage smells like English words, still garbage, but not knowledge, intelligence or anything like it.
The machine learning approach for building models, used to produce so called large language models like ChatGPT is also used to create weather forecasting models that are bigger, better and orders of magnitude faster than available until now.
The tools have changed life, but I'm unconvinced that it's a suitable, sustainable or realistic way to create artificial intelligence, despite claims to the contrary.
People are so insistent that it's ai that it all reminds me of Blockchain. It's new! It'll change everything!
It'll change some things. What we are seeing now is business forcing it into everything when really, right now, there are only a handful of things it makes sense to use.
It's really great at giving you a starting point a very rough outline of something. That is the easy part. The hard part is turning that into something new and coherent, and for that I think modern AI is nowhere close. That needs a human
I think it's definitely a bubble that will burst eventually.
At the same time, I don't think there's any way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. This technology is out there, and even once the hype has died down, we're going to be dealing with it forever.
In the sense that AI is an extremely general term that involves many different technologies, yes. Generative AI/LLMs are not true AGI, which is what people think it is. It cannot think, it cannot learn, it can only predict.
People think it AI intelligence is comparable to how a hovercraft hovers, as in the word is taken literally, but it is actually comparable to a Hoverboard.
Nobody who’s not an engineer seems to give a shit - or, indeed, even understand - the nuance of LLM technology, or the technical reasons behind its limitations and the implications thereof. Hell, I know a lot of engineers who don’t care or understand it at a meaningful level.
I manage computing for a large university. One of my recently graduated students told me that he thought that technology just worked until he worked for me and saw the problems that come up. He was already a very tech-aware person and is going for a PhD in Infomatics, so if even he didn't understand this, then what can we expect from the general public?
One useful function for AI would be to watch YouTube videos and extract any useful information into concise paragraphs. I am looking to be informed, not entertained.
I am saying I am not watching the video. I would prefer a tight paragraph or two about whatever the videographer thinks are the extraordinary circumstances.
Not sure if you're mostly joking but TT has tons of long-form content as well. It's one of the main reasons I don't use it - all my recommendations are super interesting 7+ min videos (I think I get too anxious to open the app knowing it's going to open up to some super in-depth breakdown on a very specific topic. It's insane how good their algorithm is. It practically never misses
Most people don't like a paragraph worth of information being stretched out into a 14 minute video. Luckily someone already provided the info in another comment.
Death of attention span is real but not wanting to listen to ten minutes of bullshit waffle, please like and subscribe, for two minutes of information is not it.
That could be someone's creative output. Hell, that could be the paycheck someone's eating off of-- and you and others like you out here "can it be condensed? I rly don't wanna hear it". If it's not death of attention span, then it's atomized, anti-social fuckshit; so either way this ain't the defense strat you think it is
Ok? We're not obligated to watch stuff just because it's someone's creative output. We don't owe this person a paycheck through YouTube ads. Everyone's got the right to have the necessities of life but that's got nothing to do with this. Different people have different interests, and someone who's really into this subject or this creator might want to watch the whole thing, but not everyone has to.
It's the principle of the thing. You clearly have the free-time, otherwise you wouldn't be here. You clearly have the interest, otherwise you wouldn't be in this thread. And yet, you demand an abridging of someone's creative output to suit your entitlement. Tfu.
If you only have the time to demand abridgings of people's work, maybe you shouldn't be on this site. I'm sure twitter or reddit would be more your speed.
Still not a defense for demanding abridgings to suit one's entitlement. If I think something is sensationalized or clickbait, I move the fuck on without demanding somebody else play stenographer for me.
Basically they weren't originally planning on taking a photo of earth from the moon. The fact that they even had a camera was due to interest from a few astronauts in the earlier missions. The camera had its viewfinder stripped to save weight, so the astronauts couldnt see what they were filming. On that mission they were only planning to take photos of the moon's surface. And then they decided in the moment as the earthrise happened, that it needed to be photographed, and out of tons of shots they only got one clear image.
Maybe a little clickbaity but "It's highly imporbable that they got this shot" doesn't ring the same
On my home instance, the community !meta is for discussing issues specific to the instance, it's not really relevant to people not using the instance.
On startrek.website, the Quarks community seems to primarily discuss Star Trek adjacent topics which are of interest to many Trek fans.
I think it's great that you guys want a private community for discussing things only relevant to the instance. I just wish you hadn't chosen to close a community with broad external interest.
We'll probably relax the rules on c/startrek a bit to allow a degree of Trek-adjacent content that we might have previously punted to Quark's.
I'm thinking of stuff like the Paramount acquisition drama, which is off-topic but clearly still relevant.
Expanding outward from there into stuff like "here's what Frakes is up to," we approach territory that can be covered just as well elsewhere in the Fediverse.
And to be clear, Trek-adjacent discussions will continue to be allowed in Quark's. I just don't think making the community private will be some great blow to the Fediverse.
If it helps, we will allow sales of expired Yamok sauce in c/startrek, provided the seller can produce a certificate of authenticity.
I just don’t see how closing everyone else out from Trek adjacent discussions helps the community.
The whole point of federation is letting people with varied interests come together. It doesn’t work if every niche interest makes their “general” board private.
If the concern is that we're going to have a sooper secret, members-only Star Trek discussion group, that is not the intent. If we were going to do that, we'd just make the instance private.
I only discovered this place after I was on fedi for 3+ years. It's incredible and amazing to be able to participate remotely. I honestly can't fathom why you WOULDN'T want that. But hey if they want to close it then bye I guess.
@ValueSubtracted oh I completely understand now that liking, boosting, or privately enjoying posts is not an acceptable level of engagement in an online community where "participation" is required. Thanks 🖖💫
I like to think that the ghost in the machine emerged after the glitch. Maybe a small spark caused by the glitch. Coincidentally Voyager was flying through a Interplanetary dust cloud , loaden with cosmic partcles, one particle was touched by the spark and voila: a new lifeform is created.
He was on the upswing as a director until the debacle of the Thunderbirds movie basically made him unemployable.
Star Trek has enabled him to get back into directing work, and even some acting.
He’s been picking up directing work beyond the franchise over the last few years, but an EP supervising director role for an entire limited series adaptation of a prestige author is definitely a step forward.
Could someone please adapt this video into a full-length stage musical? That's the only type of content I consume so it's only reasonable for someone to do this for me.
I have observed elsewhere that no women are announced in the creative team. I hope they get a strong female-presenting A-list lead who insists on EP status.
Quark's
Top