Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Computers don't "feel" anything (Score 1) 32

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

Comment Re:Computers don't "feel" anything (Score 2) 32

Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.

I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.

This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.

Comment Re:Meta ffs (Score 1) 32

Things businesses have to hide from unauthorized access or making public accidentally:

Businesses only need to hide it if they are the data controller or the data processor engaged in confidence. YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE IS NOT THIS. *YOU* chose not to hide it. It is clearly mentioned that your profile is available and shared with others. It's your choice not to include a photo or your name in it.

Comment Re:Meta ffs (Score 1) 32

Uhm, what it's called by everyone else in the tech industry is "personally identifiable information" or PII.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. It is published, by you. When you setup WhatsApp you're explicitly told it'll be available for other's to see. You've explicitly authorised people to view it.

Your name is considered personal information when you enter an agreement to share it in confidence. That's not what happens in public profiles. In other news Phonebooks used to exist, vast databases printed out and delivered to everyone in the city containing the PII of everyone else.

Comment Re:Huh? Where? (Score 1) 59

No it's far from the most expensive option. But yes it's not always the cheapest, but that's completely beside the point, TFA postulates a scenario where the cancellations have disappeared. They objectively haven't. They are right there and you're not even denying that fundamental point I was making.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us

Working...