|
lamo that was fun. e: the best dessert is a pie with a man hidden inside, apparently
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
that is fun. shamelessly stolen from a friend:
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:e: the best dessert is a pie with a man hidden inside, apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:no it isn't. people are broadly credulous and superstitious, and they have a natural tendency to anthropomorphize everything, and they can be fooled by incredibly dumb tricks. nah you're wrong and also kinda talkin out your rear end on this
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
no. "do people generally consider this thing to be a human intelligence" is a stupid metric. humans think all kinds of things are smart when they are not (computers, pets, elon musk) and ascribe human behaviors to inanimate objects that can never have them all the time because that is how humans understand the world. yes i am aware of the epistemological argument, brain in a jar, p-zombies, blah blah. those are irrelevant. this is a pragmatic question of whether a specific system is a suitable replacement for a human intelligence in specific situations, not whether we will hypothetically someday come up with a system that does fool everyone in every situation, or whether something counts as smart because stupid people think it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I have chatted to it a few minutes and it is indeed very dumb. yes i agree, very humanlike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
its very much ducktyping to me. If it displays the attributes of intelligence, as most people would understand it, then its intelligent. I dont really think that you need to get into ontologies and whether pattern-matching is knowledge or whether it "knows" things or any of these other questions that I have never heard resolved to anyones satisfaction for humans either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
if you showed chatgpt to an AI researcher from the 80s or 90s or even early 00s and asked them if it was an AI I think they'd have said yes. We know how it works so we're inclined to say that no its not intelligent but I am not sure whether knowing how it works should factor into the decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
rotor posted:if you showed chatgpt to an AI researcher from the 80s or 90s or even early 00s and asked them if it was an AI I think they'd have said yes. We know how it works so we're inclined to say that no its not intelligent but I am not sure whether knowing how it works should factor into the decision.  No, this was a part of AI research back then too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
I don't think there's any way to know whether current machine learning stuff can (or maybe more accurately theoretically could if cpu speed was still doubling every 18 months) eventually lead to something like actual intelligence. I think that it most likely won't but I'm not convinced that anyone can guarantee that it won't or that it's really possible to know the answer at this point. We don't understand how the brain works in the least so it's easy for us to imagine that there's all sorts of magic stuff going on in there, but honestly who the gently caress knows? Maybe all you need is to slap on some sort of additional stuff on top of chatgpt, how the gently caress should I know. That said I don't think the human race is ever going to be in a position to find out at this point. endlessmonotony posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
we can agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
rotor posted:we can agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
sure ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Things aren't working better now, we're hitting the same wall we did back then, the wall we knew existed well before we had the computing power to test it. Understanding the world requires a mental model of the world, and without it, you've got a system that repeats what it hears, and nothing else. It's not a natural language processing breakthrough because it can't extract meaning from the words used, it can't translate what you want into controlling some other system. Sagebrush is, very unfortunately, right. In that specific post. People thinking something seems intelligent is a stupid metric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
it absolutely can translate what you say into some other system though; the dumb bing bot does indeed do bing searches. sagebrush is both right and wrong, in that people are not a good metric for intelligence, but otoh people by and large do not seem to be misunderstanding chatgpt *that* deeply (outside a handful of people, like nyt headline writers and that one google engineer).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
also lets move to the chatgpt thread please, i love the cyberpunk thread for *not* being about extremely shallow current tech garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
A system being better at replicating human speech doesn't make it more intelligent - or indeed, more useful - any more than house prices going up makes an economy healthy. Ironically, recognizing these specific fuckups in thinking is key to evaluating intelligence in the first place. What being a techie helps understand is that this is a solution looking for a problem - it's completely unable to understand if the information its regurgitating is right or wrong, which means you need an use case for a robot that produces infinite amounts of vaguely plausible bullshit. None of this is vaguely new, these are all known problems in research of cognition, perception, and intelligence. Hell, my entire thing is focused around the topic of being wrong in banal, predictable ways that people don't do because they know them to be wrong, just so I can understand why people form the ideas of how they need to act to be right or wrong. And then not repeating that mistake myself and instead making more boring mistakes because I know how hill climbing algorithms work and that's a mistake that's very easy to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:also lets move to the chatgpt thread please, i love the cyberpunk thread for *not* being about extremely shallow current tech garbage. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:also lets move to the chatgpt thread please, i love the cyberpunk thread for *not* being about extremely shallow current tech garbage. Oh but doctor,
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Things aren't working better now, we're hitting the same wall we did back then, the wall we knew existed well before we had the computing power to test it. and I think the point people - or at least me - are making is that "understanding the world" is a very vague concept and that if it acts in all cases as though it is intelligent then perhaps it "understands the world" albeit in a way that you're not prepared to accept as "understanding"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:also lets move to the chatgpt thread please, i love the cyberpunk thread for *not* being about extremely shallow current tech garbage. fair enuf
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:also lets move to the chatgpt thread please, i love the cyberpunk thread for *not* being about extremely shallow current tech garbage. Not that I disagree about moving it but cyberpunk is all about shallow tech garbage!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not that I disagree about moving it but cyberpunk is all about shallow tech garbage! in regards to technical depth maybe, but if there's one thing that defines cyberpunk it is deep societal commentary. and while gpt stuff might get there, it for sure isn't happening, or is obviously about to happen, now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
rotor posted:we can agree to disagree. both parties coming to an agreement that each other is unsalvagably stupid does imply some level of understanding
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
RokosCockatrice posted:both parties coming to an agreement that each other is unsalvagably stupid does imply some level of understanding 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
RokosCockatrice posted:that is fun. shamelessly stolen from a friend: your friend is catastrophically stoned with this thing outside of a wendy's?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
E: missed the agreement to move on. I think it's pretty obvious to any yosposter that rotor isn't unsalvageably stupid though!
distortion park fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Feb 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 09:04
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:So all of this AI poo poo is basically just rebranded chatbots, but you very much shouldn't rely on voice passwords anymore, apparently!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 09:37
|
|
|
distortion park posted:E: missed the agreement to move on. I think it's pretty obvious to any yosposter that rotor isn't unsalvageably stupid though! yeah i think the right joke was distain for one anothers opinion. IDK sorry rotor not on my a game here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 10:30
|
|
|
koolkal posted:https://twitter.com/RealEmShah/status/1628623956336078849
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
infosec.exchange/@thegrugq/109931380593033961 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
a full auto 3D printed gun seems like an extremely bad idea or or those only partially printed and the important parts are metal
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
haveblue posted:a full auto 3D printed gun seems like an extremely bad idea probably that second one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
you can see a metal barrel sticking out. i'd imagine they are basically just printed plastic housings over real gun parts. since it is a guerilla group, perhaps the intention of the wild colors is subterfuge or smuggling
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:you can see a metal barrel sticking out. i'd imagine they are basically just printed plastic housings over real gun parts. i would wager metal smoothbore barrel and bolt with plastic everything else. for a fun time, look up “gun barrel electrochemical machining”
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
id be pretty shocked if those printed magazines worked at all well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
You can 3D print the lower and possibly even the upper, as long as the firing mechanism, barrel, bolt, etc is all metal it would probably work just fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
iirc the only part that is a "gun" is the receiver, everything else you can buy as a spare part without any overhead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
aah, heres the vice video that 100% of my opinions are based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dBuPJ9p7A
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
it turna out "how far homemade guns have come" is surprisingly far because gun science has been aggressively trying to make guns simpler and easier to manufacturer for a hundred years
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 02:22
|
|