Comment on Are humans really so predictable that algorithms can easily see thru us, or does continuous use of algorithm feeds make us predictable to their results?

• spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Quantum computers are inherently unreliable, but you can perform the same calculation multiple times and average the result / discard the outliers and it will still be faster than a classical computer.

  That works for pattern matching, but you don’t want to do that for doing accurate calculations. There is no reason to average the AI run calculation of 12345 x 54321 because that can be done with a tiny calculator with a solar cell the size of a pencil eraser. Doing calculations like that multiple times adds up fast and will always be less reliable than just doing it right in the first place. Same with reporting historical facts.

  There is a vslidation step that AI doesn’t do. If you feed it 1000 posts from unreliable sources like reddit or don’t add even more context about whether the ‘fact’ is a joke, baseless rumor, or from a reliable source you get the current AI.

  Yes, doing multiple calculations efficently and taking averages has a lot of uses, mainly in complex systems where this provides opportunities to test chaotic systems with wildly different starting states. There are a ton of great uses for AI!

  But the AI that is being forced down our throats is worse than wikipedia because it averages content from ALL of reddit, facebook, and other massive sites where crackpots are given the same weight as informed individuals and there are no guardrails.

  source

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    That works for pattern matching, but you don’t want to do that for doing accurate calculations. There is no reason to average the AI run calculation of 12345 x 54321 because that can be done with a tiny calculator with a solar cell the size of a pencil eraser. Doing calculations like that multiple times adds up fast and will always be less reliable than just doing it right in the first place.

    I agree.

    Same with reporting historical facts.

    I disagree. Those are not remotely the same problem. Both in how they’re technically executed, and in what the user expects out of them.

    But the AI that is being forced down our throats is worse than wikipedia because it averages content from ALL of reddit, facebook, and other massive sites where crackpots are given the same weight as informed individuals and there are no guardrails.

    No, it’s just different. Is it wrong sometime? Yes. But it can also get you the right answer to a normal human question orders of magnitude faster than a series of traditional searches and documentation readings.

    Does that information still need to be vetted afterwards? Yeah, but it’s a lot easier to say “copilot, I’m looking at a crossover circuit and I’ve got one giant wire coil, three white ceramic rectangles and a capacitor, what is each of them doing and how kind of meter will I need to test them”, then it is to individually search for each component and search for what type of meter you need to test them.

    Basically any time one human query needs to synthesize information from multiple different sources, an AI search is going to be significantly faster.

    source
• Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  In latter classes our teachers just told us to not blindly believe what we read on Wikipedia but cross-reference that with other sources like public newspaper or (as you said) books.

  source