antonim
@antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 5 hours ago:
Logic requires abstracting the argumentative form from the literal linguistic content and then generalising it, just how like math is done properly when you work with numbers and not just with sentences such as “two apples and three apples is five apples” (such abstraction in practice allows far more powerful and widely applicable operations than dealing with individual linguistic expressions; if you’ve ever solved very complex truth trees you’ll know how they allow streamlining and solutions that would be practically impossible to do if you had only the ordinary linguistic expression of the same problem). Logic doesn’t operate with textual tokens but with logical propositions and operators. “Difficulty” is not a meaningful term here, a tool is either technically capable of doing something (more or less successfully) or it isn’t.
That LLMs aren’t capable of this sort of precision and abstraction is shown by the OP link as well as the simple fact that chatbots used to be extremely bad at math (which is now probably patched up by adding a proper math module, rather than relying on the base LLM - my assumption, at least).
As for trying more examples of looking for logical fallacies, I tried out three different types of text. Since you say context is important, it’s best to take only the beginning of a text. One text I tried is the opening of the Wikipedia article on “history”, which ChatGPT described like this: “The passage you’ve provided is an informative and largely neutral overview of the academic discipline of history. It doesn’t make any strong arguments or persuasive claims, which are typically where logical fallacies appear.” It then went on to nitpick about some details “for the sake of thorough analysis”, but basically had no real complaints. Then I tried out the opening paragraph of Moby-Dick. That’s a fictional text so it would be reasonable to reject analysing its logical solidity, as GPT already did with the WP article, but it still tried to wring out some “criticism” that occasionally shows how it misunderstands the text (just as it misunderstood a part of my comment above). Finally, I asked it to find the fallacies in the first four paragraphs of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, which resulted in a criticism that was based on less logically rigid principles than the original text (accusing Descartes of the “slippery slope fallacy”).
I’ll post the full replies below.
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 19 hours ago:
That was a roundabout way of admitting you have no idea what logic is or how LLMs work. Logic works with propositions regardless of their literal meaning, LLMs operate with textual tokens irrespective of their formal logical relations. The chatbot doesn’t actually do the logical operations behind the scenes, it only produces the text output that looks like the operations were done (because it was trained on a lot of existing text that reflects logical operations in its content).
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 19 hours ago:
Right now the hype from most is finding issues with chatgpt
publicity
especially : promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind
You’re abusing the meaning of “hype” in order to make the two sides appear the same, because you do understand that “hype” really describes the pro-AI discourse much better.
It did find the fallacies based on what it was asked to do.
It didn’t. Put the text of your comment back into GPT and tell it to argue why the fallacies are misidentified.
You act like this is fire and forget.
But you did fire and forget it. I don’t even think you read the output yourself.
First I wanted to be honest with the output and not modify it.
Or maybe you were just lazy?
Personally I’m starting to find these copy-pasted AI responses to be insulting. It has the “let me Google that for you” sort of smugness around it. I can put in the text in ChatGPT myself and get the same shitty output, you know. If you can’t be bothered to improve it, then there’s absolutely no point in pasting it.
Given what this output gave me, I can easily keep working this to get better and better arguments.
That doesn’t sound terribly efficient. Polishing a turd, as they say. These great successes of AI are never actually visible or demonstrated, they’re always put off - the tech isn’t quite there yet, but it’s just around the corner, just you wait, just one more round of asking the AI to elaborate, just one more round of polishing the turd, just a bit more faith on the unbelievers’ part…
I just feel like you can’t honestly tell me that within 10 seconds having that summary is not beneficial.
Oh sure I can tell you that, assuming that your argumentative goals are remotely honest and you’re not just posting stupid AI-generated criticism to waste my time. You didn’t even notice one banal way in which AI misinterpreted my comment (I didn’t say SMBC is bad), and you’d probably just accept that misreading in your own supposed rewrite of the text. Misleading summaries that you have to spend additional time and effort double checking for these subtle or not so subtle failures are NOT beneficial.
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 21 hours ago:
Excellent, these “fallacies” are exactly as I expected - made up, misunderstanding my comment (I did not call SMBC “bad”), and overall just trying to look like criticism instead of being one. Completely worthless - but I sure can see why right wingers are embracing it!
It’s funny how you think AI will help refine people’s ideas, but you actually just delegated your thinking to it and let it do it worse than you could (if you cared). That’s why I don’t feel like getting any deeper into explaining why the AI response is garbage, I could just as well fire up GPT on my own and paste its answer, but it would be equally meaningless and useless as yours.
Saying it’ll be boring comics missed the entire point.
So what was the point exactly? I re-read that part of your comment and you’re talking about “strong ideas”, whatever that’s supposed to be without any actual context?
Saying it is the same as google is pure ignorance of what it can do.
I did not say it’s the same as Google, in fact I said it’s worse than Google because it can add a hallucinated summary or reinterpretation of the source. I’ve tested a solid number of LLMs over time, I’ve seen what they produce. You can either provide examples that show that they do not hallucinate, that they have access to sources that are more reliable than what shows up on Google, or you can again avoid any specific examples, just expecting people to submit to the revolutionary tech without any questions, accuse me of complete ignorance and, no less, compare me with anti-immigrant crowds (I honestly have no idea what’s supposed to be similar between these two viewpoints? I don’t live in a country with particularly developed anti-immigrant stances so maybe I’m missing something here?).
The people who buy into it will get into these type of ignorant and short sighted statements just to prove things that just are not true. But they’ve bought into the hype and need to justify it.
“They’ve bought into the hype and need to justify it”? Are you sure you’re talking about the anti-AI crowd here? Because that’s exactly how one would describe a lot of the pro-AI discourse. Like, many pro-AI people literally BUY into the hype by buying access to better AI models or invest in AI companies, the very real hype is stoked by these highly valued companies and some of the richest people in the world, and the hype leads the stock market and the objectively massive investments into this field.
But actually those who “buy into the hype” are the average people who just don’t want to use this tech? Huh? What does that have to do with the concept of “hype”? Do you think hype is simply any trend that doesn’t agree with your viewpoints?
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 22 hours ago:
I have no idea what sort of AI you’ve used that could do any of this stuff you’ve listed. A program that doesn’t reason won’t expose logical fallacies with any rigour or refine anyone’s ideas. It will link to credible research that you could already find on Google but will also add some hallucinations to the summary. Etc., it’s completely divorced from how the stuff as it is currently works.
Someone with a brilliant comic concept but no drawing ability? AI can help build a framework to bring it to life.
That’s a misguided view of how art is created. Supposed “brilliant ideas” are dime a dozen, it takes brilliant writers and artists to make them real. Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept. If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don’t make it visual, write a story or an essay.
Besides, most of the popular and widely shared webcomics out there are visually extremely simple or just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or - for a right-wing example - Stonetoss).
For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI. They either make it feed back into their delusions, or they whine about the evil leftists censoring the models (by e.g. blocking its usage of slurs).
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 1 day ago:
Wow, I would deeply apologise on the behalf of all of us uneducated proles having opinions on stuff that we’re bombarded with daily through the media.
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 1 day ago:
That depends on your assumption that the left would have anything relevant to gain by embracing AI (whatever that’s actually supposed to mean).
- Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. 1 day ago:
But 90% of “reasoning humans” would answer just the same. Your questions are based on some non-trivial knowledge of physics, chemistry and medicine that most people do not possess.
- Submitted 3 days ago to [deleted] | 12 comments
- Comment on Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia 4 days ago:
As I said in an another comment, I find that traditional encyclopedias fare better than Wikipedia in this respect. Wikipedians can muddle even comparatively simple topics, e.g. linguistic purism is described like this:
Linguistic purism or linguistic protectionism is a concept with two common meanings: one with respect to foreign languages and the other with respect to the internal variants of a language (dialects). The first meaning is the historical trend of the users of a language desiring to conserve intact the language’s lexical structure of word families, in opposition to foreign influence which are considered ‘impure’. The second meaning is the prescriptive[1] practice of determining and recognizing one linguistic variety (dialect) as being purer or of intrinsically higher quality than other related varieties.
This is so hopelessly awkward, confusing and inconsistent. (I hope I’ll get around to fixing it, btw.) Compare it with how the linguist RL Trask defines it in his Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts:
[Purism] The belief that words (and other linguistic features) of foreign origin are a kind of contamination sullying the purity of a language.
Bam! No LLMs were needed for this definition.
So here’s my explanation for this problem: Wikipedians, specialist or non-specialist, like to collect and pile up a lot of cool info they’ve found in literature and online. When you have several such people working simultaneously, you easily end up with chaotic texts with no head or tails, which can always be expanded further and further with new stuff you’ve found because it’s just a webpage with no technical limits. When scholars write traditional encyclopedic texts, the limited space and singular viewpoint force them to write something much more coherent and readable.
- Comment on Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia 4 days ago:
Yeah, the catastrophic comments do take it too far… WMF has already announced they’re putting it on hold, so at the very least there’s a lot of discussion with the editors and additional work that will have to happen before this launches - if it ever launches.
- Comment on Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia 4 days ago:
RAG is very good and accurate these days that doesn’t invent stuff.
In the OP I linked a comment showing how the summary presented in the showcase video is not actually very accurate and it definitely does invent some elements that are not present in the article that is being summarised.
And in general the “accessibility” that primarily seems to work by expressing things in imprecise, unscientific or emotionally charged terms could well be more harmful than less immediately accessible but accurate and unambiguous content. You appeal to Wikipedia being “a project that is all about sharing information with people to whom information is least accessible”, but I don’t think this ever was that much of a goal - otherwise the editors would have always worked harder on keeping the articles easily accessible and readable (in fact I’d say traditional encyclopedias are typically superior to Wikipedia with regards to accessibility in the sense of being comprehensible to laymen).
and would save millions of editor hours and allow more accuracy and complexity in the articles themselves.
Sorry but you’re making things up here, not even the developers of the summaries are promising such massive consequences. The summaries weren’t meant to replace any of the usual editing work, they weren’t meant to replace the normal introductory paragraphs or anything else. How would they save these supposed “millions of editor hours” then? In fact, they themselves would have to be managed by the editors as well, so all I see is a bit of additional work.
- Comment on Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia 5 days ago:
Looks like the vast majority of people disagree D: I do agree that WP should consider ways to make certain articles more approachable to laymen, but this doesn’t seem to be the right approach.
- Comment on Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia 5 days ago:
There should be some degree of supervision, users will at a minimum be able to rate the summaries as helpful or unhelpful, and I guess those rated as unhelpful will be removed.
- Submitted 5 days ago to technology@lemmy.world | 110 comments
- Comment on AI is rotting your brain and making you stupid 1 week ago:
with a LLM I can be open without any baggage involved, I can be more raw and honest than I would or could be with any human because the information never leaves my computer.
😐
- Comment on venomous 2 weeks ago:
Recently went down the rabbit hole (ok, I’m lying, I just read a Wikipedia article and one scientific study), and the venomousness of the platypus has crazy implications for mammal evolution:
It is thought to be an ancient mammalian characteristic, as many non-monotreme archaic mammal groups also possess venomous spurs.
(The monotremes are the platypus and the echinda, which unlike the platypus isn’t venomous but still has the spurs.)
- Comment on It's Breathtaking How Fast AI Is Screwing Up the Education System 2 weeks ago:
One of my family members participated in one such project, she wrote scenarios for a number of video lectures for schoolkids. It was bad, it was really fucking bad, and I could write an essay explaining why it was so, there’s a wide variety of reasons ranging across the technical, legal, administrative, etc. Just one example: you’re making a lecture about art? Yeah, go contact the copyright holders if they would be merciful enough to allow us to use the artwork in the video.
And your idea that the default approach should be that kids have no interaction with their teachers is honestly horrifying.
- Comment on YouTube's new ad strategy is bound to upset users: YouTube Peak Points utilise Gemini to identify moments where users will be most engaged, so advertisers can place ads at the point. 3 weeks ago:
They already did something similar back in the day. I remember watching a music video some ~10 years ago where they placed an ad like five seconds before the end of the song, right at the musical climax, ruining the mood with surgical precision. I was absolutely infuriated and went off to Google wondering if there’s a way to block ads. And the rest is history.
- Comment on i truly believe that there's an open war between Humanity vs. Advertisers and their allies. 4 weeks ago:
knitting scammers
Wait… what?
- Comment on Duolingo will replace contract workers with AI | The Verge 5 weeks ago:
Any good free alternatives?
You won’t like the idea but…
spoiler
pirating a textbook from Libgen/Anna’s Archive
- Comment on Duolingo will replace contract workers with AI | The Verge 5 weeks ago:
That’s honestly enraging!? Such data can be greatly valuable for learners, and the native speakers’ community, and linguistics.
- Comment on This is real 1 month ago:
Right, you the hero would cuff yourself to Garcia. Then the guards would simply stop you (possibly before you’d even manage to do it), unlock or cut the handcuffs if needed, forbid you from entering the country ever again if not outright prosecute you, and possibly put Garcia under even stricter control and isolation, to, you know, prevent having people try to get him out.
Because realistically considering the consequences is… liberal.
- Comment on Suspected 4chan Hack Could Expose Longtime, Anonymous Admins 1 month ago:
No. Qanon stuff mostly happened on 8chan, and even then there’s no secret “historical” data to access. It was one or maybe multiple obsessed and/or manipulative people spreading insane ideas anonymously, and idiots falling for it. There’s no secret inside some system out there, it’s essentially just organic stupidity.
- Comment on Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey Call For Abolition Of All Intellectual Property Laws, Arguing There Are 'Much Greater Models To Pay Creators' 1 month ago:
In an ideal society, IP laws would definitely not exist. The idea by itself is inarguably desirable.
But, more practically, IP laws should be abolished or reformed to accommodate the needs of the average creator and the average consumer. The two people who proposed this change are not average creators in the slightest, they’re looking to benefit primarily their own class, the consequences for the other 99.99% are irrelevant.
A reform of this type should start at the very least with small and realistic steps. Can we e.g. reduce the absurd duration of copyright protection (author’s life + 70 years)? Reducing it by just 20-30 years would be an incredible boon to human culture, and it would have zero serious negative consequences.
But they only talk about it in the most vague terms, no details or anything, and Dorsey doesn’t seem to have actually described any of those other ways of compensation. They’re just greedy megalomaniacs throwing ideas around.
- Comment on Another Wikipedia Admin Caught Making PR Edits 1 month ago:
The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they’re really just hellbent on criticising WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wik…
- Comment on Smartphones and computers are now exempt from Trump’s latest tariffs. 1 month ago:
The iPhones must flow.
- Comment on Circuit tracing LLMs reveal some bizarre reasoning processes 2 months ago:
The way it does math is mostly as people have already assumed - approximating instead of doing it “the normal way”. It’s 2025 and at this point absolutely nobody should be surprised that AI “confidently describe[s] the standard grade-school method, concealing its actual, bizarre reasoning process”.
As for poetry,
Here, the model settled on the word “rabbit” as the word to rhyme with while it was processing “grab it.” Then, it appeared to construct the next line with that ending already decided, eventually spitting out the line “His hunger was like a starving rabbit.”
this is exactly how many poets write rhymed poetry too, it’s not even remotely bizarre.
Still, it is interesting and good to see some concrete advancement in the study of AI reasoning. Hopefully it will contribute towards reducing the mystification of the whole thing.
- Comment on Remembering alum David Mills, who brought the internet into perfect time 2 months ago:
- Comment on Late 1900s 2 months ago:
Yeah, I’d sooner say the situation is reverse, social studies would move slower and less “definitively” than natural sciences. I’m into linguistics and literature and for me it’s nothing unusual to use scholarship and materials all the way from the 19th century. Of course, when you’re working with old literature or old language, you need old materials too… To me it’s very interesting and important to know what Aristotle thought of Homer, while it’s perfectly irrelevant for a doctor to know what Galen thought of the humours or for a chemist what Newton thought of alchemy.
