We still teach math that calculators can solve for you. If they don’t understand the foundational stuff how will they understand things too complicated for the AI?

It’s entirely possible to improve current AI using only information available to us right now. Once that well runs dry, current AI is in theory capable of running experiments and training on their results if we give it a harness to do that. This gives it access to new information. Could it succeed doing this? Unclear, but it is capable of trying. How do you think we discover AI improvements? Divine inspiration? No, we follow a relatively simple research loop.

Proof?

Other way around, it’s the reason people delete their browsing history

What I need is to be able to say, as a Jewish mom, ‘that scared me, and it scared people I love’

“All feelings are valid” stocks fall 50%

Hated ed sheeran ever since my school did a project about respecting women and the example they used was Shape of You, a song about objectifying women

Difficulties yes, differences no. The account is represented the same way on both instances.

It gets like half the info right, that’s not a good answer. Others in the thread have done a much better job of explaining it simply and well

Nonsense/disinfo. Apple and google accounts are hard to transfer because of technical differences, whereas on the fediverse they use the same format and everything.

You can’t do it on fedi because nobody’s built a mechanism to update all your content to use the new account.

For the views

Me vs the person I’m arguing with online

Pretty sure Cory’s pronouns are he/him.

Sorry, force of habit.

I agree with the whole anti-surveillance/anti-corporate-control argument. I think it’s a worthy fight to participate in. I just don’t think it’s wise to go about it in a way that could prove counterproductive by causing people to have inaccurate beliefs.

Edit: After finishing the article, my opinion has softened a bit but is much the same: Doctorow points out an important perspective (this is one of few articles pointing out the security/responsibility side of things, for example), but some of the technical info is unsupported/inaccurate. Overall probably a positive article when taking into account its role in general AI discussion, but it is not entirely accurate on its own.

Sony (they make video games) broke off a decade+ long relationship with Hideo Kojima (video game producer) but they still have buildings across the street from each other

https://lemmy.world/post/51905716

Those are some very fat normal-looking carrots, congrats!

Ok

Chuckling sadly at the idea of some aliens pulling up to the solar syatem and all they see is a giant carbon nanotube ring that says “What can I assist you with today?”

It’s incredibly obvious from the first part of the article that Doctorow is using the strongest rhetorical techniques they can, regardless of the technical merit of the resulting arguments. This makes it dogmatic, yes. That’s just kind of how Doctorow is, and always has been. I don’t much care for that method of communication because it is so often used to mislead people with oversimplified emotional language and convince them without being logically sound.

It wouldn’t be as bad if Doctorow’s understanding of the subject matter was at least accurate, but their conclusion is irrelevant if their understanding is unsound. Their main mistake is saying it is essentially doing database lookups while ommitting the entire effect that enables it to appear intelligent, that being compression of the input data into a semantic representation. Anyone familiar with the Compression is Intelligence paper and related work would know that ommitting that step is presenting a narrative so inaccurate that it is not only misleading but actually false. This leads me to conclude that Doctorow either does not understand how AI works, or does understand it but is willing to lie to their audience. Either is unacceptable and renders the conclusion of their argument worthless. Again, if they do more than “demystify” AI by incorrectly explaining how it works then let me know and I will read the rest of the article.

Edit: To be clear, an article actually demystifying AI would be a good thing. My point is that it is a bad idea to overcorrect for the ai bro hype bubble by explaining it just as badly in the other direction.