Perspectivist

@Perspectivist@feddit.uk

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I hear you - you’re reacting to how people throw around the word “intelligence” in ways that make these systems sound more capable or sentient than they are. If something just stitches words together without understanding, calling it intelligent seems misleading, especially when people treat its output as facts.

  But here’s where I think we’re talking past each other: when I say it’s intelligent, I don’t mean it understands anything. I mean it performs a task that normally requires human cognition: generating coherent, human-like language. That’s what qualifies it as intelligent. Not generally so, like a human, but a narrow/weak intelligence. The fact that it often says true things is almost accidental. It’s a side effect of having been trained on a lot of correct information, not because it knows what’s true.

  So yes, it just responds with statistical accuracy but that is intelligent in the technical sense. It’s not understanding. It’s not reasoning. It’s just really good at speaking.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  A linear regression model isn’t an AI system.

  The term AI didn’t lose its value - people just realized it doesn’t mean what they thought it meant. When a layperson hears “AI,” they usually think AGI, but while AGI is a type of AI, it’s not synonymous with the term.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve had this discussion countless times, and more often than not, people argue that an LLM isn’t intelligent because it hallucinates, confidently makes incorrect statements, or fails at basic logic. But that’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a mismatch between what the system is and what the user expects it to be.

  An LLM isn’t an AGI. It’s a narrowly intelligent system, just like a chess engine. It can perform a task that typically requires human intelligence, but it can only do that one task, and its intelligence doesn’t generalize across multiple independent domains. A chess engine plays chess. An LLM generates natural-sounding language. Both are AI systems and both are intelligent - just not generally intelligent.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  What does history have to do with it? We’re talking about the definition of terms - and a machine learning system like an LLM clearly falls within the category of Artificial Intelligence. It’s a system capable of performing a cognitive task that’s normally done by humans: generating language.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  The chess opponent on Atari is AI too. I think the issue is that when most people hear “intelligence,” they immediately think of human-level or general intelligence. But an LLM - while intelligent - is only so in a very narrow sense, just like the chess opponent. One’s intelligence is limited to playing chess, and the other’s to generating natural-sounding language.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  AI is an extremely broad term which LLMs fall under. You may avoid calling it that but it’s the correct term nevertheless.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨‘We didn’t vote for ChatGPT’: Swedish Prime Minister under fire for using AI⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  You opened with a flat dismissal, followed by a quote from Reddit that didn’t explain why horseshoe theory is wrong - it just mocked it. That’s not an argument, that’s posturing.

  From there, you shifted into responding to claims I never made. I didn’t argue that AI is flawless, inevitable, or beyond criticism. I pointed out that reflexive, emotional overreactions to AI are often as irrational as the blind techno-optimism they claim to oppose. That’s the context you ignored.

  You then assumed what I must believe, invited yourself to argue against that imagined position, and finished with vague accusations about me “pushing acceptance” of something people “clearly don’t want.” None of that engages with what I actually said.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨‘We didn’t vote for ChatGPT’: Swedish Prime Minister under fire for using AI⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I often ask ChatGPT for a second opinion, and the responses range from “not helpful” to “good point, I hadn’t thought of that.” It’s hit or miss. But just because half the time the suggestions aren’t helpful doesn’t mean it’s useless. It’s not doing the thinking for me - it’s giving me food for thought.

  The problem isn’t taking into consideration what an LLM says - the problem is blindly taking it at its word.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨‘We didn’t vote for ChatGPT’: Swedish Prime Minister under fire for using AI⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Anyone who has an immediate kneejerk reaction the moment someone mentions AI is no better than the people they’re criticizing. Horseshoe theory applies here too - the most vocal AI haters are just as out of touch as the people who treat everything an LLM says as gospel.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It must have been a whole lot more difficult to design and build tall buildings before computers existed⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Here’s the part that covers it.

  Image

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It must have been a whole lot more difficult to design and build tall buildings before computers existed⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  In case you’re curious about what would be the last remaining structures left on earth after everything else has been ground to dust:

  spoiler

  Channel tunnel between England and France and the stone faces on Mount Rushmore.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The number of times a person mentions ChatGPT in a random conversation might work as a rule of thumb to measure her intelligence (inverse proportion, of course)⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I too think that the people who like things that I don’t are stupid.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It must have been a whole lot more difficult to design and build tall buildings before computers existed⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  In the book “The World Without Us” the author states that old steel bridges would be among the last human made structures left thousands of years after humas have dissapeared for the reason that they didn’t have strenght calculations back then which they solved by simply overbuilding everything.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI chatbots are becoming popular alternatives to therapy. But they may worsen mental health crises, experts warn⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Doesn’t get around the fact that telling lonely people to “just go find someone to talk to” is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI chatbots are becoming popular alternatives to therapy. But they may worsen mental health crises, experts warn⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, right?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI chatbots are becoming popular alternatives to therapy. But they may worsen mental health crises, experts warn⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  LLM chatbots are designed as echo chambers.

  They’re designed to generate natural sounding language. It’s a tool. What you put in is what you get out.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI chatbots are becoming popular alternatives to therapy. But they may worsen mental health crises, experts warn⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  One is 25 €/month and on-demand, and the other costs more than I can afford and would probably be at inconvenient times anyway. Ideal? No, probably not. But it’s better than nothing.

  I’m not really looking for advice either - just someone to talk to who at least pretends to be interested.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instagram now requires users to have at least 1,000 followers to go live | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I doubt it. They just think others do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instagram now requires users to have at least 1,000 followers to go live | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure - it’s just missing every single one of my friends.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instagram now requires users to have at least 1,000 followers to go live | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I wish I had Elon Musk money so I could buy this platform and turn it back to pictures only with the main focus on professional and hobbyis photographers - not pictures of food and selfies. It used to be one of the few social media platforms I actually liked.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you were reincarnated, wouldn't it be elsewhere in the universe?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The level of consciousness in something like a brain parasite or a slug is probably so dim that it barely feels like anything to be one. So even if you were reincarnated as one, you likely wouldn’t have much of a subjective experience of it. The only way to really experience a new life after reincarnation would be to come back as something with a complex enough mind to actually have a vivid sense of existence. Not that it matters much - it’s not like you’d remember any of your past lives anyway.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube's new AI age verification is coming soon — here's what's going to change⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, honestly this is one of the better uses for machine learning. Not that this age checking is a good thing but if you’re going to do it on a mass scale then this seems like the right approach. I imagine that especially for a relatively heavy user this is going to be extremely accurate and far better than the alternative of providing a selfie let alone picture of an ID.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do neurotypicals like AI slop?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Is “AI slop” synonymous with AI content in general? I’ve always thought it to mean bad AI content specifically.

  I don’t consider myself neurotypical yet I see our current AI progress as net-positive. I don’t like AI slop either in the sense that I understand the term but I’ve encountered a lot of good AI generated content.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK Iranian developers have created an open-source censorship bypass solution that works on desktop and mobile.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Someone want to explain to a muggle in plain english what this does and how it’s different from simply using a VPN?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Looking back, I realize I was pretty immature at 22. It didn’t feel that way at the time, but it sure does now. These days, 18‑year‑olds look like kids to me.

  I didn’t want kids back then, and I still don’t - but my perspective has shifted a little. When I see parents now, there’s a slight melancholic feeling that comes with knowing that’s something I’ll probably never experience.

  So yeah, if you’re 30 and don’t want kids, that’s probably not going to change. Before that, though, there’s always a chance.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Meta touts 'superintelligence' for all as it splurges on AI⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Maybe so, but we already have an example of a generally intelligent system that outperforms our current AI models in its cognitive capabilities while using orders of magnitude less power and memory: the human brain. That alone suggests our current brute‑force approach probably won’t be the path a true AGI takes. It’s entirely conceivable that such a system improves through optimization - getting better while using less power, at least in the beginning.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Meta touts 'superintelligence' for all as it splurges on AI⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I personally think the whole concept of AGI is a mirage. In reality, a truly generally intelligent system would almost immediately be superhuman in its capabilities. Even if it were no “smarter” than a human, it could still process information at a vastly higher speed and solve in minutes what would take a team of scientists years or even decades.

  And the moment it hits “human level” in coding ability, it starts improving itself - building a slightly better version, which builds an even better version, and so on. I just don’t see any plausible scenario where we create an AI that stays at human-level intelligence. It either stalls far short of that, or it blows right past it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg writes a manifesto on bringing "personal superintelligence" to everyone to improve humanity, but doesn't even define what superintelligence means.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If AI ends up destroying us, I’d say it’s unlikely to be because it hates us or wants to destroy us per se - more likely it just treats us the way we treat ants. We don’t usually go out of our way to wipe out ant colonies, but if there’s an anthill where we’re putting up a house, we don’t think twice about bulldozing it. Even in the cartoonish “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment, the end of humanity isn’t caused by a malicious AI - it’s caused by a misaligned one.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg writes a manifesto on bringing "personal superintelligence" to everyone to improve humanity, but doesn't even define what superintelligence means.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Superintelligence doesn’t imply ethics. It could just as easily be a completely unconscious system that’s simply very, very good at crunching data.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg writes a manifesto on bringing "personal superintelligence" to everyone to improve humanity, but doesn't even define what superintelligence means.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If you’re genuinely interested in what “artificial superintelligence” means, you can just look it up. Zuckerberg didn’t invent the term - it’s been around for decades, popularized by Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence.

  The usual framing goes like this: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is an AI system with human-level intelligence. Push it beyond human level and you’re talking about Artificial Superintelligence - an AI with cognitive abilities that surpass our own. Nothing mysterious about it.