Obviously the horses weren’t the brains behind the operation. They were used to add physical strength to the effort of… putting Humpty Dumpty… back together… who I definitely remember as an egg but am just now realising was only illustrated that way and never actually referred to as an egg in the text of the rhyme itself…
Anyway they probably pulled carts of equipment or something idk how you put an egg back together. Or a human for that matter.
You know how Google’s new feature called AI Overviews is prone to spitting out wildly incorrect answers to search queries? In one instance, AI Overviews told a user to use glue on pizza to make sure the cheese won’t slide off (pssst…please don’t do this.)...
A good society protects its vulnerable members and that means people with impaired judgement, including the young & elderly.
You could say the same thing about a company that designs a system that tells people to eat glue. They have experts working for them that must have known this would be a problem and they released it anyway. Do they get yeeted from society for that, or are they still amongst the most powerful class of entities in history?
No he’s right that it’s unsolved. Humans aren’t great at reliably knowing truth from fiction too. If you’ve ever been in a highly active comment section you’ll notice certain “hallucinations” developing, usually because someone came along and sounded confident and everyone just believed them.
We don’t even know how to get full people to do this, so how does a fancy markov chain do it? It can’t. I don’t think you solve this problem without AGI, and that’s something AI evangelists don’t want to think about because then the conversation changes significantly. They’re in this for the hype bubble, not the ethical implications.
Also once you start to get AI that reflects on its own information for truthfulness, where does that lead? Ultimately to determine truth you need to engage with the meaning of the words, and the process inherently involves a process of self-awareness. I would say you’re talking about treaching the AI to understand context, and there is no predefined limit to the layers of context needed to understand the truthfulness of even basic concepts.
An AI that is aware of its own behaviour and is able to explore context as far as required to answer questions about truth, which would need that exploration precached in some sort of memory to reduce the overhead of doing this from first principles every time? I think you’re talking about a mind; a person.
I think this might be a fundamental barrier, which I would call the “context barrier”.
“Edging bets” sounds like a fun game, but I think you mean “hedging bets”, in which case you’re admitting we can’t actually do this reliably with people.
And we certainly can’t do that with an LLM, which doesn’t actually think.
The people you’re calling “morons” are orders of magnitude more sophisticated in their thinking than even the most powerful modern AI. Almost every single one of them can easily spot what’s wrong with AI hallucinations, even if you consider them “morons”. And also, by saying you have to filter out the “morons”, you’re still admitting that a lot of whole real assed people are still not reliably able to sort fact from fiction regardless of your education method.
Prompt injection has shown us that basically any attempt to limit the output like this is doomed to fail. Like anti-piracy ones, where if you ask directly for the info it says no, but if you ask for the info under the guise of avoiding it, it gives up everything.
Or for instance with the twitter bot, you could get it to regurgitate its own horrifically hateful prompt, then give it a replacement prompt and tell it to change its whole personality, then tell it to critique its previous prompt. There is currently no way to create a prompt that has supremacy over the user input. You can’t ask it to keep a secret because it doesn’t know what a secret is.
I think because we’re getting access to hallucinations, it’s a bit like telling a person “don’t think about an elephant”. Well, they just did, because you prompted them to with the instruction. LLMs similarly can’t actually control what they output.
Yes, my point wasn’t that it could never be achieved but that LLMs are in a completely different category, which we agree on I think. I was comparing them to humans who have trouble with critical thinking but can easily spot AI’s hallucinations to illustrate the vast gulf.
In both cases I think there are almost certainly more barriers in the way than an education. The quest for a truthful AI will be as contentious as the quest for truth in humans, meaning all the same claim-counterclaim culture-war propaganda tug of war will happen, which I think is the main reason for people being miseducated against critical thinking. In a vacuum it might be a simple technical and educational challenge, but the reason this is a problem in the first place is that we don’t exist in a political vacuum.
The problem with these hallucinated answers that makes them such a sensational story is that they are obviously wrong to virtually anyone. Your uncle on facebook who thinks the earth is flat immediately knows not to put glue on pizza. It’s obvious. The same way It’s obvious when hands are wrong in an image or someone’s hair is also the background foliage. We know why that’s wrong; the machine can’t know anything.
Similarly, as “bad” as human drivers are we don’t get flummoxed because you put a traffic cone on the hood, and we don’t just drive into tue sides of trucks because they have sky blue liveries. We don’t just plow through pedestrians because we decided the person that is clearly standing there just didn’t matter. Or at least, that’s a distinct aberration.
Driving is a constant stream of judgement calls, and humans can make those calls because they understand that a human is more important than a traffic cone. An autonomous system cannot understand that distinction. This kind of problem crops up all the time, and it’s why there is currently no such thing as an unsupervised autonomous vehicle system. Even Waymo is just doing a trick with remote supervision.
Despite the promises of “lower rates of crashes”, we haven’t actually seen that happen, and there’s no indication that they’re really getting better.
Sorry but if your takeaway from the idea that even humans aren’t great at this task is that AI is getting close then I think you need to re-read some of the batshit insane things it’s saying. It is on an entirely different level of wrong.
They require a good electrical grid and good bike infrastructure. They are the product of good infrastructure and obviously just mentioned to show you how people can get up hills, not as an example of infrastructure.
Yeah, I got blasted with next door’s music randomly the other day because my sound bar has bluetooth. I use the feature extremely rarely but it doesn’t matter if you’ve selected bluetooth with the remote or not, anybody can connect and switch it away from the wired connection and there’s absolutely no confirmation before it just takes over and floods your senses. God help you if the other person has their phone volume on full.
The correct search term for this image is “bart simpson demolition worker”. It is NOT - repeat NOT - “bart simpson adult”. I apparently forgot I was on the internet when I searched that.
Well then horseshoe theory isn’t about leftism and it’s basically just wrong, which was the point of me quoting that person’s own link back at them. If your point is that unhinged extremists with no coherent ideology tend towards a horrifying common denominator regardless of their starting point, then that’s true, but it says nothing about principled socialists.
There are plenty of revolutionary ideologies that do not fit within horseshoe theory, as political scientists have pointed out. If you want to say they’re wrong you’ll need something more than just what you reckon.
Right, so it’s basically just bullshit, and it doesn’t apply to anyone principled anyway. Although most people who talk about horseshoe theory try to use it to discredit people on the left in general, whatever your walked-back version of it may be.
This entire conversation started because a centrist attacked anyone not in the centre with horseshoe “theory”. Either everyone who isn’t in the dead centre - another dubious term that is actually synonymous with conservatism - is either a tankie or a nazi, or we’re right to criticise the use of the term in this context.
If you use it to mean all extreme positions, you’re still wrong because tankies aren’t leftists. I was conceding a small kernel of truth to the idea, not that the idea itself is an acceptable way to analyse politics.
Also “higher IQ”? That’s pretty much just a racist position, and I don’t agree there’s such a thing as a “principled racist” since race itself is a bullshit concept.
Race is not scientific, so you don’t get to racism through study and learning, you get there by believing bullshit propaganda, like for instance that some races are inherently more intelligent than others, like you apparently believe. EDIT: If you don’t believe it and are just using it as an example of racist beliefs that’s unclear, but it’s not that relevant to my point.
And you’ve totally dropped the subject of the horseshoe. Sounds like you’ve noticed that walking back what it stands for makes no sense in light of how it was used in this thread.
The Bell Curve was rightly ridiculed as a “scabarous piece of racial pornography” and there is no credible thread of thought that upholds it. Anyone interested in “principles” would be able to see that.
And oh my god someone on twitter was not convinced by their interlocutor? Clearly they have reasonable and internally consistent beliefs.
If you actually can’t tell apart the arguments of racists and the arguments of anti racists then you’re not paying attention to the content of those arguments, only their aesthetics.
It was obvious you had nothing to contribute to the horseshoe discussion ages ago when you boiled the entire political landscape down to tankies, nazis and “based centrists”. The fact you keep suggesting that pseudo-scientific racist beliefs like those from The Bell Curve are actually consistent with themselves is evidence that you lack even the most basic political education. In other words, you are a typical centrist.
The introductory references on the topic, which you can find at the bottom of the page, have these titles:
“A brave old world: an analysis of scientific racism and BiDil”
“Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy”.
“How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race”
It’s all there in black & white, very simple to understand. This isn’t some controversial topic. It has experts in consensus on one side and politically motivated propaganda on the other. It has been this way for a very long time. It is a settled question. If you don’t understand that it’s because you don’t care to read and learn. At this point if you choose to continue in your ignorance it is entirely on you.
Wilburrrr (mander.xyz)
CEO of Google Says It Has No Solution for Its AI Providing Wildly Incorrect Information (futurism.com)
You know how Google’s new feature called AI Overviews is prone to spitting out wildly incorrect answers to search queries? In one instance, AI Overviews told a user to use glue on pizza to make sure the cheese won’t slide off (pssst…please don’t do this.)...
https://google.com (lemmy.world)
Car free cities should be the future. (lemmy.world)
Why is there no sound? (lemmy.world)
Liberals are not 'the Left'... (lemmy.world)