idk ask the internet, I’m just trying to be helpful

/gen means genuine, it’s a tone indicator. Another one you might see is /s for sarcastic or /j for joking

Didn’t that technically happen with that whole radio experiment they did with different LLMs? If so then this has a non-zero chance of actually occurring lol

Therein lies the irrationality of it. I imagine they think pumping endless amounts of money into AI research will eventually make it self-sustainable and create means of suppression for them to use on the working class, but it’s based on delusional hope more than anything if not entirely. It’s likely they’ll end up finding that out the hard way.

lemmy.ml user

Doesn’t argue against the point of the replied comment, just twists words to satisfy their narrative

I swear users from this instance are called to the mildest amount of criticism against Russia like the Bat-Signal. Or I guess Vlad-Signal in this case

No I didn’t lol, you’re mistaking me for the other person. Just chill out

This is just a blatant lie.

On my planet we back up claims with evidence

deleted by creator

We need more paperclips and we need them now!!!

It was the same way with the Vietnam war. It didn’t stop because people were upset about the humanitarian crisis it was causing, it stopped because of how fiscally ridiculous it was, especially near the end.

This is how it’s always been.

It’s come to my attention that you’re someone who genuinely believes Russia is not an imperialist nation (where you ironically also attempt to hand-wave the definition of imperialism as forceful authority over another nation and imply that the only right one is that it’s a direct and unique result of capitalism—as if a word can’t have more than one definition), so I doubt you’re someone I can have a rational discussion about authoritarianism with regardless.

And again, you’re fixing the term based on your own perception to make it support your point, which doesn’t really have any merit when it comes to using these words as they are by academics essentially ubiquitously. Until we can both accept that authoritarianism has a set definition independent of many ideologies and therefore cannot be universally applied to them, this will remain a purely rhetorical argument.

Poe’s law binds us all

This is such a funny thing to say lmao, if it’s bait then it needs to be in a museum. Bravo Vince

“You’re ridiculous for participating in the society you were raised in, how dare you. You need to run out into the woods like Ted Kaczynski, never pay taxes again, and survive like the kid from Hatchet. Oh? You have people that you care about? Just forget about them, duh. Oh? I’m a hypocrite because I’m typing this on a device that was obtained through said ‘ridiculous lifestyle’? Nah, false equivalence. Just trust me, I’m basically Siddhartha Gautama. All I need is Lemmy.”

When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.

This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn’t the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren’t doing here.

LLMs don’t think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It’s simply a matter of describing it accurately.

If anything, considering it ‘AI’ is a semantic argument because it implies there’s some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn’t. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we’ve passed the point of using a better term, but it’s still unfortunate we’ve decided on that because it’s inherently misleading.

It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.

I think you’re using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it’s very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it’s cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we’ll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.

How is it a semantic argument? They’re talking about how LLMs work on a functional level, not arguing the meaning of compassion itself. It’s not hard to say that they emulate compassion and intelligence relatively well, applying human adjectives without any nuance just opens it up to being misinterpreted by people who don’t know any better.

This is a semantic argument so it’s pretty much a nothingburger. I’m just gonna go ahead and apply Alder’s razor and call it here

Notice I wrote ‘as you’ve described it’. I shouldn’t have to explain that the criticism the term tankie is calling attention to in theory is authoritarianism, not communism or socialism as a whole (as the term was literally created by communists). Unless you’re arguing that authoritarianism is a good thing. I guess I wouldn’t be all that surprised.