Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

Last weekā€™s thread

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    Ā·
    3 months ago

    The best thing about the lobste.rs thread is to identify prompt fondlers among the brethren.

    Hereā€™s something Iā€™ve never heard of before:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravecā€™s_paradox

    Moravec wrote in 1988: ā€œit is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers[ā€¦]ā€

    Apparently he had GPT back then!

    Anyway is this anything anyone takes seriously? Steven Pinker makes an appearance in the wiki page, which is a bit of a red flag.

    • corbin@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      Ā·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, itā€™s a real thing that happens when programming robots. Kinematics is more difficult than route planning, for example.

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      3 months ago

      So to throw my totally-amateur two cents in, it seems like itā€™s definitely part of the discussion in actual AI circles based on the for-public-consumption reading and viewing Iā€™ve done over the years, though Iā€™ve never heard it mentioned by name. I think a bigger part of the explanation has less to do with human cognition (itā€™s probably fallacious to assume that AI of any method effectively reproduces those processes) and more to do with the more abstract cognitive tests and games being much more formally defined. Our perception and model of a game of Chess or Go may not be complete enough to solve the game, but it is bounded by the explicitly-defined rules of the game. If your opponent tries to work outside of those bounds by, say, flipping the board over and storming off, the game itself can treat that as a simple forfeit-by-cheating. But our understanding of the real world is not similarly bounded. Things that were thought to be impossible happen with impressive frequency, and our brain is clearly able to handle this somehow. That lack of boundedness requires different capabilities than just being able to operate within expected parameters like existing English GenAI or image generators, I suspect relating to handling uncertainty or lacking information. The assumption that what AI is doing is a mirror to the living mind is wholly unproven.

    • imadabouzu@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      3 months ago

      Moravecā€™s Paradox is actually more interesting than it appears. You donā€™t have take his reasoning or Pinkerā€™s seriously but the observation is salient. Also the paradox gets stated in other ways by other scientists, itā€™s a common theme.

      One way I often think about it: in order for your to survive, the intelligence of moving in unknown spaces and managing numerous fuzzy energy systems is way more important to prioritize and master than like, the abstract conceptual spaces that are both not full of calories and are also cheaper to externalize anyways.

      Itā€™s part of why I donā€™t think there is a globally coherent heirarchy of intelligence, or potentially even general intelligence at all. Just, the distances and spaces that a thing occupies, and the competencies that define being in that space.