• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • I really hope that on-device AI becomes competitive soon. It’s nice to see that on-device is the way large portions of the industry is going, but cloud AI just uses way too much energy. Not to mention the resources required to manufacture millions of large-die GPUs.

    It’s probably naive to think that the corporations that created this problem will solve it, but it honestly seems like the most feasible path forward in the near term. I certainly don’t expect the world’s governments to be effective at regulating AI any time soon.



  • I can appreciate that contemporary neural networks are very different from organic intelligence, but consciousness is most definitely equivalent to a computer program. There are two things preventing us from reproducing it:

    1. We don’t know nearly enough about how the human mind (or any mind, really) actually works, and
    2. Our computers do not have the capacity to approximate consciousness with any meaningful degree of accuracy. Floating point representations of real numbers are not an issue (after all, you can always add more bits), but the sheer scale and complexity of the brain is a big one.

    Also, for what it’s worth, most organic neurons actually do use binary (“one bit”) activation, while artificial “neurons” use a real-valued activation function for a variety of reasons, the biggest two being that (a) training algorithms require differentiable models, and (b) binary activation functions do not yield a lot of information per neuron while requiring effectively the same amount of memory.



  • Only by upgrading to the MMI navigation system do you get access to the app store. From there, Audi forces you into add-ons like adaptive cruise control or Apple CarPlay and Android Auto for a one-month, six-month, one-year, or three-year subscription. Or you can just purchase any of those features permanently—although Audi doesn’t say for how much.

    Sounds like you’re right, but people are still right to be wary of this scheme, as the additional market segmentation will likely push up the cost of buying the feature outright. Audi is incentivized to push as many people toward the subscription model as possible to decrease the value of used vehicles.



  • Them:

    I believe

    They admitted it’s just a theory.

    You:

    Adhd is not something environmental

    Alas, the only definitive assertion in this comment chain. It has been proven that there is a genetic component to ADHD, not that it is exclusively a genetic disorder.

    I also believe ADHD is partially environmental. I have diagnosed with and am treated for it.

    It’s not anti-science to believe something that hasn’t been disproven. It is anti-science to believe something that has been disproven (e.g. climate change-denying loons).





  • all the US would have to do to completely and entirely nuke an app (or an entire federated platform!) in the US would be to declare any foreign entity (country, state, corporation, person, etc) their “adversary”.

    Declaring a foreign country to be adversarial to the U.S. is a huge deal, and I highly doubt they would do so just to ban an app. They would much sooner try to pass an unrelated “special case” legislation, and the success of such a bill would hinge on the persuasiveness of the justification.

    I’m fine with the U.S. forcing the sale of TikTok for a different reason, though: internet companies operating in China must be majority-owned and -operated by a Chinese domestic entity, yet the same restriction is not imposed on Chinese investments in U.S. internet companies. Asymmetric markets like this cede a great deal of influence to China, and it just doesn’t sit right with me.

    It can often be beneficial to both parties when two countries influence each other, but such influence must be bilateral.





  • LLMs have zero ability to reject data based on their understanding of reality.

    Me:

    I just found a proof that 2+2=5!

    ChatGPT:

    The statement “2 + 2 = 5” is a classic example of a mathematical fallacy or incorrect reasoning, often used for humorous or illustrative purposes. In standard arithmetic, of course, 2 + 2 = 4. Proofs claiming to show otherwise rely on some form of invalid manipulation of algebraic properties or deliberate arithmetic mistakes.

    A common “proof” of 2 + 2 = 5 might go something like this:

    1. Start with an incorrect assumption or manipulate the algebraic steps in a way that hides a division by zero or another illegal operation.
    2. Through these manipulations, arrive at the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

    However, each step of a valid mathematical proof must adhere strictly to the rules and properties of mathematics. Any proof leading to 2 + 2 = 5 will contain an error or a misapplication of those rules.

    If you have a specific “proof” in mind, I can help identify the error in it.