3 ms·

Speculative fiction is entertaining, but not based in reality... "they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like something a silly person would say. =

Speculative fiction is entertaining, but not based in reality... "they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like something a silly person would say. =) " I posit that that kind of myopia could leave one very under-prepared for the world one lands in." The numerous study data analysis results says otherwise... Thus, still speculative hype until proven otherwise. Not worried... initially suckered into it as a kid too... then left the world of ML years later because it was always boring, lame, and slow to change. lol =3

mindcrime 2y ago
"they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like something a silly person would say. =) Ya know, it's fine to disagree with something. But hand-wavy, shallow dismissals of what someone has to say, with no willingness to even attempt to engage with the content on a rational basis, is unbecoming.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  Failure to back up the assertion about "AI" existing in LLMs means there is no meaningful conversation to be had, but I offered to wait for a coherent argument in a time-bound manner. =3
- ycombiredd 2y ago
  I can’t help but have the thought that the Joel_McKay in this conversation is itself an LLM having been prompted to flippantly disregard and downplay mentions of a.i., and LLMs specifically. I’m not saying it is true , but I am saying it made the tone and content of his messages in this thread seem a lot more self-consistent and explainable when I re-read them with that context in mind. :-) (@Joel_McKay: apologies for downplaying your sapience - human, LLM or otherwise.)
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    I assure you I am 100% turnip. =3
  - mindcrime 2y ago
    It hasn't said anything intelligent yet, so there is that...
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      I asked for bobs proof, and was given marketing. Then provided instructions on how to present facts, and still await the data. Then immature folks showed up to try to cow people with troll content. I don't have to prove anything, as the evidence was already collected and reported in peer-reviewed journals. People just prefer to ignore the cited evidence that proves they are full of steaming piles of fictional hype. =3
      - mindcrime 2y ago
        Proof of what exactly are you asking for? Certainly there is zero question that today's "AI" systems are making progress on a wide array of benchmarks. You can see that here: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_AI-Index-Report-2024.pdf https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_... Look in the section starting on page 73. Or just examine this image: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fig_2.1.16-scaled.jpg https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fig_... There's your "speculative fiction" you seem so fond of. Now, if your argument is no more than "who cares about benchmarks, 'AI' still isn't 'Real AI'" then all you're doing is repeating the 'AI Effect'[1] thing over and over again and refusing to acknowledge the obvious reality around you. The AI's we have today, whether "real AI" or not, are highly capable in many important areas (and yes, far from perfect in others). But there is a starting point to talk about, and yes there is reason to think in terms of "rate of change" unless you have some evidence to support a belief that AI progress has reached a maximum and will progress no further. I don't have to prove anything, as the evidence was already collected and reported in peer-reviewed journals. Again, evidence for what exactly? What are you even claiming? All I see Bob claiming, and what I support him(?) in is the idea that there is legit reason to worry about the economic impact of AI in the near('ish?) future. [1]; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
        2y ago

mindcrime 2y ago

"they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like something a silly person would say. =) Ya know, it's fine to disagree with something. But hand-wavy, shallow dismissals of what someone has to say, with no willingness to even attempt to engage with the content on a rational basis, is unbecoming.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Failure to back up the assertion about "AI" existing in LLMs means there is no meaningful conversation to be had, but I offered to wait for a coherent argument in a time-bound manner. =3
ycombiredd 2y ago
I can’t help but have the thought that the Joel_McKay in this conversation is itself an LLM having been prompted to flippantly disregard and downplay mentions of a.i., and LLMs specifically. I’m not saying it is true , but I am saying it made the tone and content of his messages in this thread seem a lot more self-consistent and explainable when I re-read them with that context in mind. :-) (@Joel_McKay: apologies for downplaying your sapience - human, LLM or otherwise.)
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  I assure you I am 100% turnip. =3
- mindcrime 2y ago
  It hasn't said anything intelligent yet, so there is that...
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    I asked for bobs proof, and was given marketing. Then provided instructions on how to present facts, and still await the data. Then immature folks showed up to try to cow people with troll content. I don't have to prove anything, as the evidence was already collected and reported in peer-reviewed journals. People just prefer to ignore the cited evidence that proves they are full of steaming piles of fictional hype. =3
    - mindcrime 2y ago
      Proof of what exactly are you asking for? Certainly there is zero question that today's "AI" systems are making progress on a wide array of benchmarks. You can see that here: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_AI-Index-Report-2024.pdf https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_... Look in the section starting on page 73. Or just examine this image: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fig_2.1.16-scaled.jpg https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fig_... There's your "speculative fiction" you seem so fond of. Now, if your argument is no more than "who cares about benchmarks, 'AI' still isn't 'Real AI'" then all you're doing is repeating the 'AI Effect'[1] thing over and over again and refusing to acknowledge the obvious reality around you. The AI's we have today, whether "real AI" or not, are highly capable in many important areas (and yes, far from perfect in others). But there is a starting point to talk about, and yes there is reason to think in terms of "rate of change" unless you have some evidence to support a belief that AI progress has reached a maximum and will progress no further. I don't have to prove anything, as the evidence was already collected and reported in peer-reviewed journals. Again, evidence for what exactly? What are you even claiming? All I see Bob claiming, and what I support him(?) in is the idea that there is legit reason to worry about the economic impact of AI in the near('ish?) future. [1]; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
      - 2y ago