That would be an unsafe car in all conditions and with all drivers. Sure, user error would play a part but a reasonable person could still cause a problem.

Perhaps a better analogy will make a useful point. Is there a button for that?

No, that’s not the same thing. Something being used in a more dangerous way doesn’t make it more dangerous or more unsafe.

Driving a car at speed along a cliff in the dark in the rain is more unsafe than driving it slowly in an empty car park. It’s the same car.

True, but the point still applies. Lol, fomo, etc. I’d.say it applies to more than it doesn’t.

FBI In not I like pie CIA Same SCUBA u like you, not I u like under

I hope it leads to them losing another class action about scams. They claim it’s too hard to regulate ads when there are so money, but clearly they can filter if they choose to.

No, it’s not, it’s a single transferable vote. See Ireland.

Why eliminate below a percent. Just eliminate the lowest rank candidate and redistribute. Keep going until you have your winner.

Radiologists don’t usually see patients.

Oh, no, see they will blame the doctor that was treating them and would normally get a radiologist report, but instead got an AI report.

AI is actually pretty good at x-ray interpretation but it does get it wrong, as do radiologists. The safe option is to have the radiologist review ai output.

Stray. You’re a cat. Cats are evil.

The analogy takes one sentence to explain. Your explanation took 5 paragraphs.

That is the point of an analogy. To make it “analagous” to something familiar, so as to avoid explanation.

You keep on asking someone to refute your facts. They are not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether the analogy works. It does as it represents the fact that the ai does not understand it’s output. The analogy does not reference the search nor the human that is doing the reading.

The point is that the AI LLM does not understand what it is outputting, in the same way that a person does not need to understand a Wikipedia page to read it.

Rather than a Wikipedia page, perhaps you’d get the analogy better if they said reading a page from an advanced physics textbook. The point is that the information being presented accurately does not infer understanding in the case of AI. That was represented perfectly fine in the analogy, which was it’s purpose.

They simplified it, and also used hyperbole. That’s not the same as motte and bailey.

You’re being too literal, while still being imprecise. It’s likely why you’re struggling with what the analogy is for.

There is a fee for crypto transaction processing. The fee is the same irrespective of dollar value, so for small transactions, like buying a game, it is more than a cc middleman fee.

Eventually, I think k this is where crypto can work. Something like the digital euro where the transactions are processed by a trusted entity, the European central bank, rather than your local bank through the visa or MasterCard system. If those fees can be low or eliminated, visa and MasterCard are dead.

No, the analogy is about not understanding but regurgitating data. It’s more complex than that but the gist is that they don’t understand or have knowledge of the data being presented.

They are statistical models for what is desirable output. They don’t understand what they give as an answer. That is why they halluncinate information that sounds plausible and confident.

We’re not refuting your point about how the technology works, but rather that the person you replied to provided a poor analogy. They didn’t. It served the purpose it was designed to do. If you don’t understand that, that’s on you, not them. Maybe ask an ai to explain. ;)

Ana analogy does not need to be precise. It expresses a comparison for easier understanding. It is not what LLMs do. However what you’ve expressed is simplified also. So by your standard, it is not useful for the discussion.

So maybe get your head out of your ass and try to understand what people are trying to express instead of correcting them when they are not incorrect.

If precision was of that much importance to you, you would have a different opinion of LLMs.

You’re discounting the fact that a human reading Wikipedia will attribute intonation and tone to the text to give further context and meaning. I think the analogy is good. Its not precise but it is the same thing.

I do think AI has a useful purpose and is here to stay. I don’t think it’s groundbreaking like the AI companies want us to think. The bubble will burst and then we’ll see where the cards lie.

OpenAI has lost their lead and I expect they will start to struggle with further funding. There are quite a few warning signs. The price of oil is likely to increase power prices generally and cause construction delays and cost rises. Both will hamper their plans. They still don’t have a viable model for profit.

What you’re describing is not a structural change. What you’re describing has happened before. You’re describing a bubble.

I do think there is a structural change, similar to how there has been for the arrival of computers, the arrival of the internet, the arrival of covid and WFH etc. LLMs have changed how many people will work. However. They aren’t able to replace workers.

The onlystructural concern I have currently is that the models and processing power become out of reach for all but giant corporations and data centres. As there are open models and much of the changes are happening across many companies and individual programmers, I don’t see that happening. Perhaps the best models and training data will be out of reach but there are enough people vested in open source and proficient, that should things start to get out of reach and computing become less available, I’d expect that to change. Similar to how windows led to Linux which is now better.

Or telling someone stupid to be more clever, as the case may be.

I get your point. I’m not op, but it makes the task easier. It doesn’t eliminate it is their point. I get yours. That the manual sink washing is more of a chore and also more time sensitive. I too would like to never have to empty the dishwasher, which often has a whole days stuff, not just one meal. For families, this can be a bunch of stuff and neverending.

I thought AI would save us money? If it adds 50% onto the cost of a salary and bynall studies does not improve productivity output, then it’s not great.