Dzso

How long do you think your rights in prison are going to last once they’ve eliminated your most basic rights outside of prison?

In my social circles, people have moved from Facebook to Instagram and WhatsApp. To be honest, it’s a different UI but the same algorithmic overlords.

The thing with Facebook/Meta is that it’s not just one thing. It’s a lot of different things under one umbrella. In general, the replacement for Meta is the Fediverse. But you need to be specific about which features you want to replace.

For long form posts, I’ve set up my own blog using Ghost. Ghost also has passable Fediverse support now, though it’s still missing a lot of features.

These are some of the most inaccessible seeming accessibility features I’ve ever seen. They updated visionOS for blind people, for fucks sake. And who decided to put the word “nutrition” in an accessibility feature that has nothing to do with nutrition? Braille on a smartphone screen? A magnifier app with normal sized UI controls? Who is in charge of this?

You think that’s exclusive to the UK? I live in rural Asia and police patrol the countryside with drones.

I will literally starve to death living in the wilderness before someone puts a Neuralink in me. If you forced me to choose, I would choose starvation.

Even as a white male US born citizen, I also don’t see myself flying back any time soon. I’m nobody, but I’ve run my mouth against fascists online enough that I’ve probably triggered some flag in the system.

So you’re describing a reasoning model, which is 1) still based on statistical token sequences and 2) trained on another tool (logic and discourse) that it uses to arrive at the truth. It’s a very fallible process. I can’t even begin to count the number of times that a reasoning model has given me a completely false conclusion. Research shows that even the most advanced LLMs are giving incorrect answers as much as 40% of the time IIRC. Which reminds me of a really common way that humans arrive at truth, which LLMs aren’t capable of:

Fuck around and find out. Also known as the scientific method.

What you’re describing is not an LLM, it’s tools that an LLM is programmed to use.

This doesn’t sound like a nonprofit.

You don’t understand what an LLM is, or how it works. They do not think, they are not intelligent, they do not evaluate truth. It doesn’t matter how smart you think you are. In fact, thinking you’re so smart that you can get an LLM to tell you the truth is downright dangerous naïveté.

I’m not saying humans are infallible at recognizing truth either. That’s why so many of us fall for the untruths that AI tells us. But we have access to many tools that help us evaluate truth. AI is emphatically NOT the right tool for that job. Period.

That’s very interesting. I’ve been trying to use ChatGPT to turn my photos into illustrations. I’ve been noticing that it tends to echo elements from past photos in new chats. It sometimes leads to interesting results, but it’s definitely not the intended outcome.

I’m not saying these prompts won’t help, they probably will. But the notion that ChatGPT has any concept of “truth” is misleading. ChatGPT is a statistical language machine. It cannot evaluate truth. Period.

Pretty sure I’m not gonna hire you to do any professional work for me.

My first reaction was “who give a fuck?” then I got to the part of the article that says:

His website, which also features the purple dragon and a bunch of busted links in the footer, says that the firm “integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services.”

Which is honestly a thousand times more concerning than how he chooses to display his silly logo. Dude is writing legal documents with AI. At least his lack of professionalism is obvious.

I live in Asia. I’m European and meet a lot of Chinese tourists. Trying to find a common ground with digital services we both use is impractical to the point where we often can’t connect online.

Yes, that’s also true. But even if it weren’t, AI models aren’t going to give you the truth, because that’s not what the technology fundamentally does.

Your argument is basically “people are stupid”, and I don’t disagree with you. But it’s actually an argument in favor of my point which is: educate people.

Anyone who understands that it’s a statistical language algorithm will understand that it’s not an honesty machine, nor intelligent. So yes, it’s relevant.

If I could get a laptop with a screen like this, I could finally sit outside in a park and code like nature intended.