gcheliotis

joined 1 year ago
[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

This thread is like a lesson in the importance of x and y axes range in time series plots

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

There’s a movie about that. Well, it’s about high-tech incubator eggs that promise relief from the toils of pregnancy so mothers can go on working (so they can afford said proprietary incubator eggs). Not a great movie, but it was interesting. Don’t remember the title unfortunately.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Granted, our tendency towards anthropomorphism is near ubiquitous. But it would be disingenuous to claim that it does not play out in very specific and very important ways in how we speak and think about LLMs, given that they are capable of producing very convincing imitations of human behavior. And as such also produce a very convincing impression of agency. As if they actually do decide things. Very much unlike dice.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The AI did not “decide” anything. It has no will. And no understanding of the consequences of any particular “decision”. But I guess “probabilistic model produces erroneous output” wouldn’t get as many views. The same point could still be made about not placing too much trust on the output of such models. Let’s stop supporting this weird anthropomorphizing of LLMs. In fact we should probably become much more discerning in using the term “AI”, because it alludes to a general intelligence akin to human intelligence with all the paraphernalia of humanity: consciousness, will, emotions, morality, sociality, duplicity, etc.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Ok makes sense. Thanks.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When it comes to cosmetics I thought it’s the other way around because men who will buy cosmetics are generally higher earners or something like that, so they’re generally willing to pay more.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Nice but paywalled for me

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You know what, we don’t need to be always on the same page. Sure, it’s good when we are, but we don’t need to echo each other’s views and that’s ok :) Cheers

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hmm well if you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited advice, I would say that (from the frustrations you express) maybe you, like most of us, enter discussions online with a mind to convince others of the absolute truth of what you believe in. It is actually more productive to listen to them, then ask why they feel the way they do about certain topics, and then try to see if you can find common ground with them. Only then can you perhaps influence their views a little. But if you are earnest about the exchange, you must allow them to influence you too.

I know that’s hard, I fail often myself and become frustrated.

Of course there are conspiracy theories and falsehoods that are absolutely bonkers and it stymies me too why some people will gobble it all up, but a wise person is never too sure of their own truths either. Funny thing is we are all biased one way or another, we just tend to be blind to our own biases. Of course some truths are supported by more evidence than others, but especially when it comes to politics it is less about the absolute truth of a matter than it is about adopting a particular perspective. No single perspective is more valid than others inherently. It is all just ways of looking at things. Of course one can try and come up with objective criteria, but that too is quite hard.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I am aware, and it’s good you brought this up. All sides are gullible, but some perhaps more than others. Although, the very study you posted a link to states clearly that other studies have had mixed results. Are you posting this one because, as a political scientist, you know the field and studies referenced and can assert with confidence acquired through disciplined study that this work provides better proof that conservatives are indeed more gullible (where other studies failed), or are you posting it because it appears to confirm your a priori views of conservatives?

Apart from the actual truth of the matter, I made my comment above because I believe that looking down on conservative concerns and viewpoints - something that is naturally aided by any perceptions of conservatives as gullible simpletons - has not served liberals well. In fact, it’s something that right wing populists have been able to exploit quite well to gain the sympathy and ultimately the vote of large swathes of said simpletons.

view more: next ›