Cranky armchair wonk and word nerd.
@YourMomsTrashman A purpose-designed system might have the same underlying POTENTIAL for garbage output, IF you train it inappropriately. But it would be trained on a discretely selected range of content both relevant to its purpose, and carefully vetted to ensure it’s accurate (or at least believed to be).
A cancer-recognizing system, for example, would be trained on known examples of cancer, and ONLY that.
@YourMomsTrashman I’m no expert, but my sense is that you’re probably correct. This seems to me a version of the long-understood GIGO principle in computing (Garbage In, Garbage Out), also a principle in nearly all forensics of any kind. Your output can only be as good as your input.
Most of our general-use ‘AI’ (scorn quotes intentional) has been trained on an essentially random corpus of any and all content available, including a lot of garbage.
A purpose-designed system would not be.
@GreenKnight23 I have to remind myself now and then that around ten thousand people are new to the Internet every day. That includes people as insufferably tiresome as you.
It’s not that you don’t have a point. You do. Or whether you’re ‘wrong’. That’s irrelevant. It’s that you’re being such an asshole about it.
Luckily, modern tools let us permanently block people who just want to pick fights for the sake of it.
Bye.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
@cm0002 I’m not sure what her game is, but I do know that she’s desperately in need of money, so she basically works for Koch and anyone else who will back her.
After that, I think she knows that this is probably her last term, or at best second-to-last. She’s been doing worse term by term, and won by a squeaker last time. She’ll be 55 going into Election 2026, and just doesn’t have the steam anymore. Next election will likely be a tie, or very close, ending her dominance if she wins.
@SoftestSapphic I’m aware. I get why people think that, but like nearly all such ‘theories’, it relies pretty much entirely on conjecture and what ‘feels right’, with little or no evidence.
I come from a family of scientists and academics, and my forensics are much stricter – and real life and history bear that out. Occam was right. What requires the fewest and least extravagant assumptions is most likely to be correct, no matter how unsexy or disappointing.
@wildcardology Sadly par for the course in many prisons. This particular one was already notorious for being crappy that way. Things like failed equipment and bad workers shouldn’t surprise anyone for a society with the highest incarceration rate in the world. We’re just kind of a shitty country when it comes to locking people up.
@ArchmageAzor Not everything you don’t fully and completely understand is a conspiracy. I know it’s exciting to imagine that, but most stuff is just ordinary human stupidity.
@athairmor Perhaps ironically, what we’re erroneously calling ‘AI’ really is a kind of black mirror. It’s a crude simulacrum of the shared human id, our worst failings and impulses – made manifest in virtual form, like a digital golem. It’s everything superficially awful about us, ginned up to seem self-aware and act autonomously.
That’s an inevitable and predictable result of how it was created.
@cm0002 There might or might not be, depending on how you qualify terms. A lot of convincing video is fake, or misinterpreted. A lot of real video evidence is poor, or only interpretable by experts, who won’t convince skeptics. So it might not matter.
That said, there is no GOOD evidence that he DIDN’T kill himself, and it’s very understandable why he would have. His life was over, and he knew it. He had nothing to look forward to but misery and danger.
@billwashere More specifically, I come from a realm of scientists and academics, and I’ve by now seen MANY highly intelligent, very well-educated people who have demonstrated astonishing stupidity.
At the same time, I’ve also personally known people with clinically diagnosed neurological deficiency who can nevertheless reason very well, even very wisely.
What you’re staying is true in broad statistics, but it’s not a rule.
@billwashere I used to believe that, but no longer do. I’ve seen too much evidence against it.
I’m now certain that any self-capable person can develop and have good thinking habits. They might need help in with information or education, and some guidance in basic logic. But I’m certain by now that rational thought is not dependent on superior or even average native (neurological) intelligence.
They’re uncommon, but folks like the Sllingblade guy really do exist. I’ve known them.
@billwashere I realized sometime back that actual intelligence isn’t very relevant to good reasoning. It comes down to good thinking HABITS, which nearly anyone can develop with enough effort and practice. But it doesn’t come naturally for most people, and instead must be taught and learned. And the later in life you learn those skills, the more you have to UNlearn to do it.
@CrayonDevourer It’s a combination of “I don’t understand this fully and immediately myself” (without appreciating one’s own vast ignorance about MOST things), with happening to catch something spoken or written that’s wrong, but SOUNDS sensible (also due to that same ignorance), and thinking, “That sounds reasonable, and it harmonizes with my feelings, so it’s probably right.”
It’s a child’s grasp of reality. But also typical of far too many legal adults.
@Treczoks It’s not based on any lofty ideas. It’s based on a very stupid rumour that probably started as a joke some years ago. These are not ‘idea’ people. They are very stupid people.
@JPSound What’s going on is that some of these chumps – and plenty in the right wing – honestly believe that this is going on, and that schools themselves are not only enabling it, but even encouraging it. It’s a childishly stupid notion, of course, but a great many in the right wing are childishly stupid, and not living in the adult reality most people are.
@jj4211 @Flax_vert It sounds to me, from various sources with bits of the picture, that active ranging was dropped during the pandemic because supply was harder and it would have slowed production, with potential financial consequences for the brand (due to Elmo’s customary over-leveraging backed by his boastful BS). And then tried to claim that that was intentional, even planned, and tried to make up the loss with some kind of software magic that still can’t violate the laws of physics.
@YourMomsTrashman I’d call that a predictable result, heh. And some of that input has got to be garbage.