Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.8k
  • 738 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    19 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.
  • Grok, Elon Musk's AI chatbot, seems to get right-wing update

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    185 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    79 Aufrufe
    A
    Yep. Pretty sure that was deliberate on Musk's (or his cronies) part. Imagine working at X and being told by your boss "I'd like you to make the bot more racist please." "Can you convince it that conspiracy theories are real?"
  • Is AI Apocalypse Inevitable? - Tristan Harris

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    61 Aufrufe
    V
    Define AGI, because recently the definition is shifting down to match LLM. In fact we can say we achieved AGI now because we have machine that answers questions. The problem will be when the number of questions will start shrinking not because of number of problems but number of people that understand those problems. That is what is happening now. Don't believe me, read the statistics about age and workforce. Now put it into urgent need to something to replace those people. After that think what will happen when all those attempts fail.
  • An earnest question about the AI/LLM hate

    Technology technology
    57
    73 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    231 Aufrufe
    ineedmana@lemmy.worldI
    It might be interesting to cross-post this question to !fuck_ai@lemmy.world but brace for impact
  • The Universal Tech Tree

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans

    Technology technology
    34
    1
    205 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    165 Aufrufe
    M
    Well if they're collating data, not that difficult to add a new table for gun ownership.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    339 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • Apple Eyes Move to AI Search, Ending Era Defined by Google

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    ohshit604@sh.itjust.worksO
    It’s infuriating that Safari/Apple only allows me to choose from five different search engines. I self-host my own SearXNG instance and have to use a third-party extension to redirect my queries.