3·
2 months agoUnited States of chinA
stravanasu
- 2 Posts
- 67 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
these autonomous agents represent the next step in the evolution of large language models (LLMs), seamlessly integrating into business processes to handle functions such as responding to customer inquiries, identifying sales leads, and managing inventory.
I really want to see what happens. It seems to me these “agents” are still useless in handling tasks like customer inquiries. Hopefully customers will get tired and switch to companies that employ competent humans instead…
😂
The current security philosophy almost seems to be: “In order to make it secure, make it difficult to use”. This is why I propose to go a step further: “In order to make it secure, just don’t make it”. The safest account is the one that doesn’t exist or that can’t be accessed by anyone, including its owner.
We aren’t supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that’s the only power we have on devs. But it’s a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.
2·7 months agoPersonally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it’s a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!
It seems to me these scenes are introduced in films to sexualize them. Most often than not they don’t add anything to the story. But blood & sex get more viewers. So I find the whole thing hypocritical.
Brings me to mind an episode of the hilarious series “Coupling”, where Jeff says that the actress in the film “The Piano” (?) was naked in the whole film. His friends say she wasn’t, it was only a scene in the film. And Jeff replies “it depends on how you watch it” 🤣
Thank you for the explanation! – it puts that sentence into perspective. I think he put it in a somewhat unfortunate and easily misunderstood way.
“Bayesian analysis”? What the heck has this got to do with Bayesian analysis? Does this guy have an intelligence, artificial or otherwise?
It’s reached 333 protesters! that’s 1/3 of the way to 1000, it’d be cool if it kept on increasing :)
Nothing dense in this, I don’t quite know what to write either. In my opinion what you wrote in your comment is just perfect, you’re a citizen simply expressing an honest concern, without lying – not all people are tech-savvy. It also makes it clear that it’s a letter from a real person.
But that’s only my point of view, and maybe I haven’t thought enough steps ahead. Let’s see what other people suggest and why.
From this github comment:
If you oppose this, don’t just comment and complain, contact your antitrust authority today:
- UK:
This is actually already implemented, see here.
(also @ridethisbike@lemmy.world)
Maybe it is pointless, maybe it is a bad idea. Maybe not. It’s difficult to predict what this kind of small-scale actions will have on the big picture and future development. No matter what you choose or not choose to do, it’s always a gamble. My way of thinking is that it’s good if people say, through this kind of gestures, “I’m vigilant, I won’t allow just anything to be done to me. There’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed”.
Of course you’re right about supporting and choosing alternative browsers, and similar initiatives. There are many initiatives on that front as well. I’ve never used Chrome, to be honest; always Firefox. But now I’ve even uninstalled the Chromium that came pre-installed on my (Ubuntu) machines. Besides that I ditched gmail years ago, and I’ve also decided to flatly refuse to use Google tools (Google docs and whatnot) with collaborators, as a matter of principle. If that means I’m cut out of projects, so be it.
Regarding WEI, I see your point, but I see dangers in “acknowledging” too much. If you read the “explainer” by the Google engineers, or in general their replies to comments and criticisms, you see that they constantly use deceiving, manipulative, and evasive language. As an example, the “explainer” says a lot “the user needs this”, “the user desires that”, but when you unfold the real meaning of the sentences it’s clear it isn’t something done for the user.
This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they’re human
Note the “need for human users”, but the sentence actually means “websites need that users prove…”. This is just an example. The whole explainer is written in such a deceiving manner.
The replies to criticisms are all evasive. They don’t reply the actual questions or issues, they start off a tangent and spout a lot of blah blah with “benefit”, “user”, and other soothing words – but the actual question or issue never gets addressed. (Well, if this isn’t done on purpose, then it means they are mentally impaired, with sub-normal comprehension skills).
I fuc*ing hate this kind of deceiving, politician talk – which is a red flag that they’re up to no good – and I know from personal experience that as soon as you “acknowledge” something, they’ll drag your into their circular, empty blabber while they do what they please.
More generally, I think we should do something against the current ad-based society and economy. So NO to WEI for me.
Agree (you made me think of the famous face on Mars). I mean that more as a joke. Also there’s no clear threshold or divide on one side of which we can speak of “human intelligence”. There’s a whole range from impairing disabilities to Einstein and Euler – if it really makes sense to use a linear 1D scale, which very probably doesn’t.
Here?: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/about/
Looks like a good project, I didn’t know about its existence.
Yes, the purpose isn’t sabotaging.
Title:
ChatGPT broke the Turing test
Content:
Other researchers agree that GPT-4 and other LLMs would probably now pass the popular conception of the Turing test. […]
researchers […] reported that more than 1.5 million people had played their online game based on the Turing test. Players were assigned to chat for two minutes, either to another player or to an LLM-powered bot that the researchers had prompted to behave like a person. The players correctly identified bots just 60% of the time
Complete contradiction. Trash Nature, it’s become only an extremely expensive gossip science magazine.
PS: The Turing test involves comparing a bot with a human (not knowing which is which). So if more and more bots pass the test, this can be the result either of an increase in the bots’ Artificial Intelligence, or of an increase in humans’ Natural Stupidity.
IMSTOA. WDNPSEAM?
(I’m so tired of acronyms. Why don’t people write in English anymore?)