this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
435 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
3120 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
435
AI trained on AI garbage spits out AI garbage. (www.technologyreview.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've worked in the industry for over a decade

Since we're naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I'm a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you're wrong

What I said isn't even up for debate.

Begging the question

If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn't have said it.

Ad Hominem

You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are "references" from credible sources that are cited.

Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia. I'm not going to put more work into this than you are. If you can't be bothered to find the actual source I'm not going to do it for you.

Modeled loosely on the human brain...

Let me stop you right there.
"Modeled loosely on the human brain." So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.

It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.

None of that indicates a capacity to reason.

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).

I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.

Now I know you're either 14 or just not very smart.

Ad Hominem

It's literally in the sentence, it said "deliberate planning akin to human brains".

Interesting how you cut out the words "prevents the LLM from" that immediately preceded that.

Convenient for your "argument".

Convenient for dealing with a gish gallop. Not going to waste my time analyzing sources you haven't even read.

You just can't read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can't understand them.

More Ad Hominem.

Someone with an actual argument doesn't need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph. They can simply present their argument. Someone without an actual argument is likely to resort to personal attacks to make the other person go away and stop forcing them to defend their (non)argument, then think they've "won" just because the other person isn't bothering to deal with them anymore.

Anyone else who reads these comments will see you're out of your depth.

Ah yes, you've been getting a lot of "support and agreement" from the other people reading your comments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Since we're naming fallacies: appeal to authority. I'm a Astronaut Scientist Millionaire Cowboy and I say you're wrong

Can you get your fallacy definitions right at least? It's not appeal to authority if the person being referenced has the qualifications or experience in the subject being discussed. I have worked with the technology for a decade. I've trained countless neural network models for various purposes. I understand the technology.

Begging the question

No. You are literally trying to debate established facts.

Ad Hominem

This would be true if I didn't address the point multiple times. This was me offering an explanation for why you keep getting it wrong.

Then you should have linked those, not Wikipedia

I did link to multiple scientific sources. You just gave up before even getting to halfway.

"Modeled loosely on the human brain." So again your source straight up says it does not function like a human brain.

No, it literally says in multiple sections (that I quoted) that neural networks are designed by modelling biological brains. It doesn't matter if it's "loosely", "exactly", "somewhat", or "kinda". It's modelled "loosely" because the human brain is incredibly complex. Quite possibly the most complex thing known of. The distinction here in the ONE quote you cherry-picked is that it said human brain. The distinction is the word "human".

Interesting how you cut out the words "prevents the LLM from" that immediately preceded that.

I literally didn't. It's literally in my quote on italics. I'll refer to my previous (ad hom) statement about your reading comprehension.

None of that indicates a capacity to reason.

Then go back to the links you conveniently skipped over.

I thought we were talking about LLMs, not ANNs, and an attempt to emulate does not imply success.

It hurts. You actually hurt my brain. An LLM is literally an artificial neural network. How do trolls like you actually think?

Someone with an actual argument doesn't need to resort to personal attacks every other paragraph.

Nothing I said is a personal attack. Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.

They can simply present their argument.

I have; very simply, in fact. I just genuinely do not think you have the reading comprehension or capacity to understand.

Ah yes, you've been getting a lot of "support and agreement" from the other people reading your comments.

Sure, the 10 people who commented on this post who are not reading our convo is such an indication of support.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remaking that you must not have good reading comprehension is insulting, but not a personal attack.

I was going to reply to other things until I read this. It really displays why continuing is a waste of time. You insist I lack reading comprehension in the same sentence that you insist a literal personal attack is not a personal attack.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Finally something we can agree on. Continuing this is a waste of time.

You don't accept evidence, so there's nothing left to be said.