via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

Humanity is not intrinsically violent to this scale.

could you expand on that?

this is an explicit design feature of federation: free association. this is one of the primary reasons it is in theory better than something centralized. this post is layers of wrong.

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

If they can target the underlying architecture of the models like nightshade does, it will actually be quite hard to deal with for the surveillance companies.

Removed by mod

The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.

The internet is a funny analogue!

Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.

I mean I would and do in fact literally blame societal and familial problems when kids are brutal, unkind, or hurt others, and similarly blame societal and familial problems for when kids are not protected from brutal, unkind, and hurtful things.

Why are you saying the things you’re saying like a gotcha? Do you not feel that society has a significant impact on the behavior of youth?

More likely you’re more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It’s funny when y’all use “fear mongering” for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it’s honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?

It’s a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It’s not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it’s inescapable.

It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I’m actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn’t actually respond to it. I hope you will.

Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Neither am I. When you’re defending whatabputism, it’s best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you’re arguing with accurately.

False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it’s billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.

Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think “banning human progress in any way” is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.

Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.

So you’re using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?

“Google is doing a bad with z”

“z can’t be bad, I use y and it doesn’t have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions.”

??

Plenty of smart people are focused on stupid ideas that are useless in general. Plenty of people who only appear smart also do the same.

Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. “The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the creators, users, and perpetuators” is tautological.

And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.