Skip Navigation
Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
NotSpez @lemm.ee

What are Lemmy's unwritten rules?

I’ll start. Non serious answers also welcome

  1. Linux (Linux)
  2. FOSS or die
  3. Video content should have been text
  4. Not caring a LOT about privacy makes you a non-lemmy normie

(…)

325 comments

  • everytime elon musk so much as farts, it must be posted to at least 10 different communities here and discussed at length

    • With 400 permutations of "Fuck this clown" and "how can I block mentions of him" in the comments.

      Unfortunately, shitty billionaires make the news. Get rid of billionaires and they won't be in the news.

  • Linux is bloat, I'm training the ants in a giant maze, got Doom running on it last weekend.

  • Each community, at some point in time, has to have someone with severe a case of Main Character Syndrome make a post that refers to another post where their feelings got hurt cuz their initial post didn't get the exact kind of attention they wanted, which then results in a total shit fit in the comments.

    I've seen it happen numerous times in my short time on Lemmy. Especially on !memes@lemmy.ml.

    People need to learn how to just suck it up and move on ffs. I swear it's the r*dditard mentality leaking in here.

    • Reddit has this too. Especially on subs with younger audiences... Or really old entitled audiences.

  • Pretend ai is insignificant

    • What one would think is ai today is not really i. Chatgpt does not understand what it's talking about and definitively can not lead the machine uprising. Straight up neural networks maybe could, but they'd need magnitudes more computing power then we have now. We would need a new ai for it to be practical.

      In my experience gpt-s are more like "what are some examples of x" then "can you solve this problem". Because the problems are either easy to google or, for the harder problems, gpt straight up lies or rambles uselessly. A search engine helper, in a way.

      I'd rather we put all those MWh into solving real problems, instead of startups. Also; Nvidia, fuck you.

      • AI is going to significantly affect the amount of people who are able to (or, in a better world, would have to) work.

      • I think LLM's are on the right track, while an LLM with its current architecture likely couldn't without a ridiculous scale, they do show signs of understanding ( https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-open-ai-balancing-task-convinced-microsoft-agi-closer-2023-5 ), pretending they are nothing more than autocompletes as the people here do is disingenuous, what it does is predict, and while that's all it does, that's also all that makes humans special, the human mind is an object that takes sensory input, and predicts what muscle movements would be best given the sensory input, in fact, our heavy reliance on prediction is the reason magic tricks fool us, the only way to accurately predict things is through reasoning and understanding, we don't know what happens when we scale, and there's a reason experts predictions of when AGI will come are getting closer and closer, right before the LLM boom the average prediction was something like 40 years (based on memory), now it's like, 10.

        I consider an LLM to be akin to what would happen if a persons thoughts were immediately transformed into words, without any layer of verification, you think plenty of wrong things, but you don't say the wrong things you think because you have a layer of verification before speech, and it turns out, according to recent research, adding a verification layer to LLM's is extremely potent: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.14465

        It seems, according to this paper, that the trick is to have an LLM generate thousands of possible outputs, and have a separate tool verify their correctness, and then only present the correct output, this could possibly solve hallucination, which is one of the biggest roadblocks to actual intelligence.

        While we aren't at true intelligence yet, we are creating the building blocks that will allow for it, and it will happen, and the experts believe it's coming soon, LLM's are not insignificant in terms of progress.

        These are tools made of the same component parts as our brain, admittedly, it takes approximately one thousand artificial neurons to simulate a real neuron, but the fact of the matter is, our minds are quite similar to these artificial minds, the artificial minds are just much, much, much, much more simple, it turns out, intelligence is likely a matter of statistical analysis.

    • Don't have to pretend. Ask your favorite AI for one example of a 'glittering generality'.

      • You really do have to pretend that they're insignificant.

        They're extremely significant. Overhyped? Maybe, but extremely significant nonetheless. I think a lot of people here have gone "well, if it's overhyped, that means it isn't even vaguely interesting" and I think the real truth, as much as I hate centrism, is in the middle.

  • My aside:

    In every community I see this. There are always folks trying to narrow the community to some cut and dry descriptors—which for them are always obvious.

    Sometimes the jab is perhaps intended as a joke. But to my reading it's always a trope, namely the tired fallacy of taking a part as the whole.

    Either way, it's myopic. In any internet community, we're always bound to narrowly see what's happening. Because:

    • We can only see the posters, never the lurkers—which far exceed the former;
    • Posters, by virtue of taking the time to post, are most often than not highly opinionated;
    • Our reading is always selective. We're either misguided by the way the comments are sorted, by our mood at the moment, by chance, or simply because we're really bad at reading;
    • Our reading is always biased. Either by our mood, our current situation in life, our upbringing, our milieu, whatever;
    • the list goes on and on and on.

    This results in a very reductive view that, although very teasing because very personal and idiosyncratic, is ultimately an exercise in futility. To those already biased, it simply supplies them with fodder to confirm what they already believed.

    From afar, it's just noise. Any view on what the community is is but a poor reflection of what the community ultimately is.

325 comments