Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W
Posts
0
Comments
312
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • That is not as smart of a question as you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, not everything can be modeled mathematically, or if you wish to be extremely minute, not everything can be currently mathematically modeled efficiently and precisely because it would require knowledge or resources far eclipsing what we have available. If you just want to push up your glasses and ACKSHUALLY me, then it's also possible to do anything, hurr hurr.

    To even fucking PRETEND that we can model a brain right now is hilarious to me, but to equate that to LLMs is downright moronic. Human brains are not created, trained, or used in any way similar to LLMs, no matter what anyone says, but you are insinuating that they are somehow similar??? They are a simulation of a learning algorithm, trained through brute force tactics, and used for pattern completion. That's just not how that works!

    And yet, in spite of the petabytes of data they fucking jam into these pieces of shit, they still can't even draw hands correctly. They still can't figure out the seahorse emoji. They still don't know why strawberry has two Rs! They continuously repeat only the things they hear, and need to have these errors fixed manually. They don't know anything. And that's why they aren't intelligent. They are fed data points. They create estimations. But they do not understand what the connections between those points are. And no amount of pointing at humans will fix that.

  • Just as a brain is not a giant statistics problem, LLMs are not intelligent. LLMs are basically large math problems that take what you put into them and calculate the remainder. That isn't an emergent behavior. That isn't intelligence at all.

    If I type into a calculator 20*10 and it gives me 200, is that a sign of intelligence that the calculator can do math? I never programmed it to know what 10 or 20 or 200 were, though I did make it know what multiplication is and what digits and numbers are, but those particular things it totally created on its own after that!!!

    When you type a sentence into an LLM and it returns with an approximation of what a response sounds like, you should treat it the same way. People programmed these things to do the things that they are doing, so what behavior is fucking emergent?

  • Holy shit. This is the craziest article to write about one of the shittiest videos I have ever seen.

    That video is glazing the fuck out of LLMs, and the creator knows jackshit about how AIs or even computers work. What a fucking moron.

    So, like, the point of the experiment is that LLMs will generate outputs based on their inputs, and then those outputs are interpreted by an intermediary program to do things in games. And the video is trying to pretend that this is LITERALLY a new intelligent species emerging because you never told it to do anything other than its initial goal! Which... Isn't impressive? LLMs generate outputs based on their datasets, like, that's not in question. That isn't intelligence, because it is just one giant mathematics problem.

    This article is a giant pile of shit.

  • Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let's pretend I didn't because not everyone can understand things the first time.

    Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.

    See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That's active racism, and yeah, it's fucking worse.

    Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying "we're tough on crime". Do you think that?

  • Democrats are just as racist as the Republicans

    That's just not true. They are obviously not even close to the same. They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn't have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.

    I get that you want to equate these two, that any amount of racism is somehow just as bad, but it just fucking isn't, and I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit when one side has active lynchers in its midsts and brandishes at the sight of a black person. Make an argument that calls out the "tough on crime" narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don't call them the same. That's such a weenie position.

  • acab

    Jump
  • To preface, I am agreeing with you and countering the person you're replying to.

    There is a difference between abolish the police and abolishing law enforcement. Like it or not, there is ALWAYS something enforcing the laws. It might be the form of mob justice, vigilantes, local militias, gangs, a sheriff, neighborhood watches, the military, or some other state-sanctioned organizations, but there is always law enforcement. That does not argue for maintaining the police, but could still say that a force existing to enforce the laws exists. Heck, I think a police force isn't necessarily a bad idea, but that the current police force is staffed by people with a propensity for abuse, disdain for the people they are there to protect, and a willingness to escalate situations with violence at pretty much any turn.

    You can argue for different forms of law enforcement, but it will always exist in some form. It's just that citizens need far more oversight and control over it because law enforcement is power that can easily corrupt.

  • Agitators fired paintballs and were pepper spraying, according to some people that were in the area, and the cops did nothing about them.

  • Right??? I can't believe these protestors! All ICE is doing is a ton of illegal shit, what's wrong with that?

  • Ah... I think I see your problem now. You think nothing can happen unless the bourgeois will it. I, frankly, don't agree with that. I think you think the world is a lot more chess-like when it's really a lot more like poker with mostly idiots. That does explain why MLs want to go authoritarian to fix the problems, though.

    Anyway, the reason why you're a fucking biscuit is you don't seem to be expressing ideas to convert liberals to your cause. You have written them off as unfixable, and, well, that sort of gives you fewer allies. How silly.

  • But that's the thing. That isn't the primary task. That's your primary task. Some people just need to get out of their struggle before they can help others. And if you think that will create more enemies than allies to you, then... I think you are grossly misinformed or you are lying about what you actually want.

    Like, you might as well say we shouldn't have freed the slaves unless we destroyed the institutions that created slavery. Incremental progress is still good, even if it's not preferred, and people's lives benefit from it.

  • Is anybody an ally of you if they have other goals that are not yours???

    So deep. Much thought. Philosopher. Wow.

    Truly, you also participate in society, you fucking donut.

  • You got a lot of people attacking you for saying this that are oddly defensive of billionaires and their "right" to purchase young women, sex, or anything else they want.

  • But Bill Gates did make a generous donation in Epstein's name only a couple hours after this draft, so, you know, definitely not conclusive.

  • In a perfectly balanced, evenly powered world where everyone had adequate housing, food, and all the necessities of life, transactional sex is fine. Because no one's life depends on it. There is no power imbalance, no coersion.

    But we don't live in that world. Billionaires can and often do make your life a living hell if they don't get what they want from you. And people, generally, do not have all the necessities of life. 99+% of them require money to live. And these women are no exception. Heck, this doesn't apply to even just billionaires or men. Sex workers NEED that money to live, so it is inherently exploitative.

    That is the problem, like it or not. But billionaires only compound the issue multiple times over, because they can also apply power greater than others. And they can stop being a billionaire at any point.

  • Lmao! Okay, buddy, body language expert coming through! Fucking good one.

  • Juvenile? Okay. Now fuck off.

  • I mean, I think they got it right or you would've said otherwise.