Notices by Snidely_Whiplash (snidely_whiplash@nicecrew.digital), page 2
-
Embed this notice
AI can't even generate working code beyond simply copying some Pajeet's homework on Overstack.
-
Embed this notice
No. They are a language generator. They don't simulate human thought in any way. That path was explicitly rejected by the creators of Large Language Models, since it had thoroughly stagnated for over 30 years. Instead, they took the Turing test seriously, despite it being nonsense, and built a machine that attempys to meet that standard instead. They construct simple human language sentences in response to prompts. This is no small feat, but it is not thought, and it is not intelligence.
-
Embed this notice
AI is really bad at cartoon corpses.
-
Embed this notice
No, it does not know what a car is. It cannot abstract the idea of "car" from it's training database. It can't even abstract the idea of "object" from its database.
This is why it's so terrible with hands. I has no abstract idea of what a hand it, what it does, what it looks like. It can only concatenate several millions of images tagged with the word "hand" and calculate an average of what lines, shapes and coloration correspond to that tag. But because hands are so mobile, fluid and expressive, the examples do not do much to constrain the image generator.
Likewise, it has no idea of what a "car" is. It has a list of compositional elements, shapes, lines, curves, etc that correspond to the tag "car". The image generator has no concept of what a car is, or even what a car looks like, because concept is itself outside the programming.
This is a category error.
And AIs can't observe.
-
Embed this notice
The problem of "today's" AI is not a level or implementation problem. It is that what they are producing is not intelligence. AI has nothing to do with intelligence. What they have produced is a very expensive engine that can generate pertinent answers in grammatically correct, though often simple, English. This is not a small achievement, but it is not intelligence.
You claim "There is not reason we will not create intelligence someday."
This is a very bold assertion, one with no evidence or thought behind it at all. Can you even define what intelligence is? The AI industry gave that pursuit up in the 1980s.
I would assert, quite baldly, that computers, being what they are, and given how they work, will never ever ever, on a fundamental level, be capable of intelligence, no matter how much programming you put into the effort.
BTW the Turing Test is ontological nonsense.
-
Embed this notice
AI can, quite literally, only repeat what it's read. It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence.
AI-generated science will turn out the equivalent of the AI drawing of a woman with big tits and 3 hands.
With the deluge of Indians using AI too generate training content for AI, we will shortly reach the point where AI is widely seen as the joke that it is.
-
Embed this notice
Very few scientists spend their lives studying anything. Physicists specifically spend their lives extending mathematical equations. IT is always assumed, though not without evidence, that those equations are already fundamentally correct. When a physicist claims to have "proved" something, 90% of the time, he means "the equations balance.
But something in the Standard Model is seriously out of kilter. trying to refine equations in order to extend your understanding doesn't work if the basic model is incorrect.
And gravity is the most incorrect part of the Standard Model. physical matter, light, electromagnetics are all fairly well understood, but Gravity is the problem child. There is no known mechanism for it to work. Every time some physicist thinks "AHA! I HAVE THE ANSWER TO GRAVITY!" he turns out to be very provably wrong.
My personal opinion, and it is only an opinion because I don't have the background to prove anything one way or the other on it, is that LeSage had the right idea, gravity is a pushing mechanism, not a pulling one.
-
Embed this notice
You should not like Black chicks. You shouldn't want to date Black chicks.
They are awful.
-
Embed this notice
Kamala can be made to decide whatever they want her to decide. It's not like she's a strong person with a solid core.
-
Embed this notice
Scripture is a part of Tradition. The most important part, but only a part.
-
Embed this notice
There were Christans long before there was a New Testament, before any of the books were written.
Scripture is only significant because it is the codification of Sacred Tradition.
-
Embed this notice
No, the interesting part is where people who pretend they are defending the Christian faith refuse to state it.
-
Embed this notice
If you want to be treated as a Christian, it's a simple, expedient way to prove you're neither a jew, an idolator, nor a demoniac.
I no longer assume that anyone is a Christian jyst because they make Christisn word-noises.
-
Embed this notice
Like oretending you are a Christian when you exhibit shame in Christ.
-
Embed this notice
Do you actually know any Catholics?
Or are you repeating what some other ignorant fool told you?
-
Embed this notice
So did I.
Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" knows Christ.
-
Embed this notice
Every single phrase is direct from Scripture.
Try again.
-
Embed this notice
And, BTW, Sacred Tradition in the opposite of "nebulous and ever-changing".
-
Embed this notice
Your ignorance ofChristianity, like every other subject, is truly astounding. You have reached levels of ignorance only possible through sheer determination and relentless dedication that would be admirable if not engaged in the pursuit of being recklessly, intentionally stupid
-
Embed this notice
I am siding with my Ukrainian friends an coworkers, many of whom are now dead because of idiots like you.
Statistics
- User ID
- 248218
- Member since
- 10 Mar 2024
- Notices
- 83
- Daily average
- 0
Snidely_Whiplash
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the