Skip to content

Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever

Technology
224 110 1.0k
  • 738 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    333 Aufrufe
    K
    That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.
  • 229 Stimmen
    47 Beiträge
    273 Aufrufe
    D
    Oh it's Towers of Hanoi. I have a screensaver that does this.
  • 195 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    139 Aufrufe
    isveryloud@lemmy.caI
    It's a loaded term that should be replaced with a more nimble definition. A dog whistle is the name for a loaded term that is used to tag a specific target with a large baggage of information, but in a way where only people who are part of the "in group" can understand the baggage of the word, hence "dog whistle", only heard by dogs. In the case of the word "degeneracy", it's a vague word that has been often used to attack, among other things, LGBTQ and their allies as well as non-religious people. The term is vague enough that the user can easily weasel their way out of criticism for its usage, but the target audience gets the message loud and clear: "[target] should be attacked for being [thing]." Another example of such a word would be "woke".
  • 88 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    gnulinuxdude@lemmy.mlG
    I have never used a food delivery service because they all feel so fucking scummy and exploitative. Seems like they are in equal need as we are for regulatory overhaul of this business practice.
  • 21 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    sentient_loom@sh.itjust.worksS
    I want to read his "Meaning of the City" because I just like City theory, but I keep postponing in case it's just Christian morality lessons. The anarchist Christian angle makes this sound more interesting.
  • 236 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    382 Aufrufe
    R
    Yeah, but that's a secondary attribute. The new ones are stupid front and center.
  • 54 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    fauxpseudo@lemmy.worldF
    Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.
  • 163 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    77 Aufrufe
    L
    Online group started by a 15 year old in Texas playing Minecraft and watching extreme gore they said in this article. Were they also involved in said sexual exploiting of other kids, or was that just the spin offs that came from other people/countries? It all sounds terrible but I wonder if this was just a kid who did something for attention and then other perpetrators got involved and kept taking it further and down other rabbit holes. Definitely seems like a know what your kid is doing online scenario, but also yikes on all the 18+ members who joined and participated in such.