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.

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.

No, bit trains are also great. Look at japan.

Due to tech bros being happy to sacrifice safety for their progress and stock prices. Musk mainly. However,.the technology will mature. It’s inevitable at this point.

I’ve just travelled interstate to see the in laws for Easter. We flew so as not to lose a day. It would be great if those pods in the future came in the evening and we just slept our way to their place with electric vehicles.

Using the roads that already exist with automated vehicles 24hrs would reduce traffic and delivery times etc. It is just a matter of ensuring that companies like Amazon are not the only game in town and the infrastructure is open and usable by all.

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.

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.

Well then, saying European monarchies is a problem is disingenuous if nepotism is a global problem providing outsized political power.

It is normal for a Kennedy to walk into a political position, though. Maga just magnifies the problem. They didn’t create it.

Yes, and I was adding to the conversion, more addressing the poster above you.

However to limp all of Europe as one entity of monarchies and Israeli influence is disingenuous. Misguided at best, propaganda at worst.

Israel is abusing its relationship and historical persecution of Jews to allow them to persecute others, including with genocide. They are (quietly) expanding into Lebanon while people are looking elsewhere. The ceasefire in Gaza still kills Palestinians with frequent Israeli actions.

The whole war seems to be at their behest and the involvement of Iran is directly linked to their bombing of Iran 2 years ago. However, Iran is also the supporter of much of he resistance against their genocidal actions. As it was mainly carried out in a terrorist/guerrilla type fashion, Israel’s view os that they have no choice but to act. It’s obviously concerning that no government in the west seems concerned that they claim valid cause to have violent relations with every neighbour.

They shriek about nuke development while not being a party to nuclear disarmament treaties and having their own nukes. It’s disingenuous but works for propaganda purposes. They claim the un is biased and lacks authority, glossing over the fact that the creation of Israel was via un processes.

In the case of Europe, the monarchies that are mentioned don’t hold power and are mostly ceremonial. As an Irish person, I’m completely against the idea of inherited authority and wealth of nations, but the USA seems to give more authority to their ordained families. Look at the head of healthcare. If he wasn’t a Kennedy, do you think a former heroin addict vaccine conspiracy theorist who thinks autistic people should be in work camps would be a potential leader in any other country?

You mean Spain and Sweden that pushed to recognise genocide and Palestinian statehood? That kind of power? Germany has deep guilt about WW2. Israel has outsized influence but not the owned politicians like in the USA.