politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think you're mistaken. Their ability to infer from partial information makes them excel at innovating new ideas or concepts not yet considered.
Ai doest infer or understand anything
It is just probability formulas.
It can only copy what a human has already done. Only apply it how a human tells it to.
You're mistaken. It's a neural network, not so dissimilar from a physical brain - just with simulated, digital synapses instead of biological, physical ones. It is much more than probability formulas. You're thinking of a Markov Chain, which is completely different from the neural network of modern LLMs. Neural networks are capable of novel generation, outside of what was learned during training. There is no copying involved, at all.
I'm a cognitive neuroscientist and I'm knowledgeable about these "neural networks". They are in fact , not like the brain.
They are probability models.
The human brain does not use mathematical probability. Nor does it use information the way probability models use it.
The only way that they are like the brain is that both can be visualized like a network of nodes that connect with lines.
"Visualized" . Meaning an artistic representation.
That's where the similarities end.
They are not capable of novel generation except that can remash existing procedures with other procedures that humans programmed them to do, into infinite combinations.
This is not creation. It's not innovation.
It's systematic trial-and-error based on human solutions.
And sometimes after a million iterations, a handful work.
A human wouldn't have needed to approach the problem like that. We rarely problem solve systematically because it's inefficient and we are way better at finding solutions through our own methods.
We only use systematic methods in research and then we still use novel problem solving to implement focused systematic methods. We have limited time and funding usually so we have to be smart about it and not do every combination. Also doing big systematic methods increases a type 1 error.
Which AI does a lot of.
I value your time and response, but it doesn't match my experience. I am a computer scientist, and have created neutral networks. Just because they aren't structured the same, and have different methodologies, doesn't mean the similarities end at visual representation. The layered digital neurons allow obfuscation of actual processing, there is no hard coded logic as you seem to imply.
And I don't know what models you've been using, but I get a valid, relevant and insightful response 99% of the time, not once every million attempts. Your assertions do not align with my experiences at all.
Generating something that did not exist before IS creation, and it can be innovative. I don't know how you can assert otherwise, unless you've been using very poor excuses for LLMs. I don't see trial and error in responses to my prompts,I see thoughtful, intuitive and insightful responses that demonstrate a level of context inference that couldn't just be random chance.
Perhaps you're familiar with the structural, mathematical and organizational concepts, and you can differentiate their respective methods of operation, but it seems to me like you have faulty information regarding capabilities and the resulting potential usage of LLM models.
Would you be willing to give me examples of things you've attempted that didn't work until after millions of tries, and which model(s) you were using? You seem confident, so I'm wondering where the mismatch is in our mutually shared, individually observed reality.
Dude. Ai is statistical formulas.
Just because it "feels" insightful does not make it anything more than probabilities.
If you create it yourself, you surely understand this.
Ai is a system designed to mimic.
Don't be fooled by a mimic.
You give it "life". You interpret ai as being more than it actually is.
I'm starting to think AI psychosis really is a thing. Way too many people seem to think it's actually alive. Or has consciousness.
It understands nothing. It only regurgitates.
And when I was talking about trial and error I'm referring to the so-called problem solving AI systems being applied to many things.
I never claimed it was alive. I do think you oversimplify it's function, though.
Let me provide an example, and you tell me where the misunderstanding exists?
I take a photo of a wall, and tell a model I'd like a recommendation on color to match the existing palette. It responds with a recommendation that won't clash, but further adds that based on the furniture in the room it suspects the room is used for studying and contemplation. Based on this unprompted observation, it recommends a different specific color, and further adds that the distance to the ceiling is less than standard, so it further recommends incorporating vertical lines into the design to provide the illusion of greater space than is actually available.
I call the additional information insightful, and surmising the purpose of the room based on furnishings, when it was unrelated to the original question, is an example of advanced inference of information. Is it not?
No it's not an example of advance anything.
It pulls information based on what you, a human asked it to do and it used information commonly found on guides. That a human made.
It's a glorified search engine.
I didn't ask it to analyze the purpose of the room, or make a modified recommendation on the determination. It took the initiative to incorporate that information, inferred a conclusion I didn't provide, and further volunteered helpful information wholly unrelated to the prompt.
Of course humans made the original information. It's the culmination of all human knowledge! Are you suggesting that to be doing anything at all impressive, it would need to spontaneously learn what dolphins think and know?
A search engine... You're not even serious. Nevermind. Go back to earning your PhD in psychology and leave us plebians alone.
But it used popular guides online. That a human made.
It didn't think "oh I should really go above and beyond to make sure this person gets the perfect color".
It doesn't have such motivations since it's a probability formula it instead searches reddit comments and popular websites and uses that information.
These are popular in the first place because they provided good information. Ai doesn't pull from a reddit post with 10 downvotes. Or a website with little information and even less traffic.
And This is how dead internet works.
The websites ai stole that information from only invested in making such guides to pull traffic to their site which likely sells something.
When these guides no longer pull in traffic to their store because Google just stole their tutorials or guides (without crediting the humans that made them) , stores will stop creating guides, tutorials and the like.
Why would they invest in creating knowledge when AI is just going to steal it?
They won't.
In a matter of years there will be no new innovation or guidelines made and vetted by humans. Just AI that stole it from AI that stole it from AI ......that stole it from a human who wrote it 10 years ago to the point where the guide isn't even relevant anymore. And AI has added a bunch of made up sounding things at every iteration so it's now all just nonsense.
Ultimate internet nightmare!
"You just don't understand neural networks."
"Well akshully, I'm a cognitive neuroscientist..."
🤣
I have two masters and am working on finishing up my PhD. I research depth perception.
The reason I have two masters is because I had a masters from a university before applying to a PhD program. The PhD program also is a 5 year masters/PhD combination degree so I got a second master's in the same field during this program.
It's a little annoying to have two masters in the same field but it is what it is.
Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of psychology. Both my associates and bachelor's are psych.
I got my associates at a community college. My b.a at state. My first masters in the UK because it was cheaper. And my current university is a private research focused university.
You are free to review my comment history. I've been consistent in my claims of my education because I don't lie.
You can dismiss what I say because you want to believe in the magic ai.
But I took coursework on statistics for all of my degrees with the exception of my associates.
Including both masters.
I've attended conferences and presentations on neural networks. They are probability models. They use anovas and linear correlation stats to make probability models.
They originally were developed using games with changing rules to see if they could predict how persistent the person would be in using old rules after a few trials gave people the chance to realize the game had new rules.
I actually made a complaint during that presentation that the name "neural network" was misleading.
It was a behavioral probability model.
The probability model was not invented for these studies but these are the early research using the term ",neural networks".
With the goal of applying these "neural networks" to marketing and advertising. of which I found unethical and still do.
But if you are a researcher, working for a big corp to manipulate people is where the money is. So a lot of grads do it.
And just to give you a little example of what an actual neural network looks like.
Here is one of a monkey. Because doing the experiments to map human ones is unethical and not done.
This image is from a volume by Fellman and Essen, 1991. Hard to find online but this image is in many textbooks as an example to show how little we have mapped of the human visual cortex.
Even a simple primate has a highly complex network. And not all paths are used for a given stimuli.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connections-between-visual-cortical-areas-of-the-macaque-monkey_fig12_282917004
This is all I'm going to provide because in the past I've spent enormous amounts of time getting links and content to explain the basics of neuroscience to people online who can't be bothered to read it because they prefer to have some imaginary belief about it that simplifies it.
It ain't simple.
If you want to learn about the topic more I will just recommend watching a YouTube course lecture series.
There are a few. Just search "cognitive neuroscience class"
But I doubt you will because you'd rather have your imaginary magic sentient AI (that's just a statistical formula) and believe you understand how the brain works even though you never studied it.
Holy cow man. I was pointing out the comedy value of a random internet commenter assuming someone doesn't know anything about neural networks only to have that person be an actual expert on neural networks. You might want to put some of that psych knowledge into checking into your sensitivity issues.
And just for the record, I don't know shit about how brains work. I have a ba and ms in computer science and I also don't know shit about AI.
Ultimate Internet nightmare retaliation!
"You just don't understand neural networks."
"Well akshully, I'm a computer scientist specializing in machine learning..."
🤓