First : the algorithm predicts thar our behavior today will be like our behavior yesterday. Which makes sense.
Second : what you eat determines how you poop. And they do control what we eat. So that makes sense too.
So both work together.
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?
Submitted 1 day ago by ICastFist@programming.dev to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
Plesiohedron@lemmy.cafe 16 hours ago
benni@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
The success of algorithmic feeds does not imply that humans are predictable in general. It just means that humans are predictable in terms of what content will keep them scrolling/watching/listening for some more time.
JASN_DE@feddit.org 1 day ago
Humans overall are extremely predictable. Other factors might aggravate this, but even without any tech involved it’s not looking good.
GeekyOnion@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The proof of that fact can be found in things like the Pepys diary. Dude was stoked about his cool watch, and his dalliance with an actress.
zarathustra0@lemmy.world 1 day ago
LLMs: high fidelity stochastic bureaucracy.
Subtly categorising people into bureaucratically compatible holes since 2021.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
We are, but only the truly simple minded can be thoroughly swayed and changed into an antisocial beast of propaganda, tasked with toil and consumption. Also, there’s no need to vilify “the algorithms” or their results… there’s nothing wrong with YouTube recommending me a Japanese “Careless Whisper” cover from the 80s, based on my previous input. 😅
Drekaridill@feddit.is 1 day ago
The former
gaiussabinus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
GIGO
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fun fact: LLMs that strictly generate the most predictable output are seen as boring and vacuous by human readers, so designers add a bit of randomization they call “temperature”.
It’s that unpredictable element that makes LLMs seem humanlike—not the predictable element that’s just functioning as a carrier signal.
EchoSnail@lemmy.zip 25 minutes ago
You just ruined the magic of ChatGpt for me lol. Fuck. I knew the illusion would break eventually but damn bro it’s fuckin 6 in the morning.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 hour ago
i.e. their fundamental limitations is, ironically, why they are so easy to hype
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The unpredictable element is also why they absolutely suck at being the reliable sources of accurate information that they are being advertised to be.
Yeah, humans are wrong a lot of the time but AI forced into everything should be more reliable than the average human.
rhombus@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s not it. Even without any added variability they would still be wrong all the time. The issue is inherent to LLMs; they don’t actually understand your questions or even their own responses. It’s just the most probable jumble of words that would follow the question.
sxan@midwest.social 1 day ago
Is it? Is random variance the source of all hallucinations? I think it’s not; it’s more the fact that they don’t understand what they’re generating, they’re just looking for the most statistically probable next character.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Things don’t have to be more reliable if they’re fast enough.
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.