Appreciate the reply! It’s a cool way to view it in individual terms. I was thinking in more social terms, however, which I’ve been a little fascinated to find seems to be a little atypical from the replies so far.
I like to ask a variety of questions, sometimes silly, serious, and/or strange. Never asking in an attempt to pester or “just asking questions” stuff.
I’m generally curious and/or trying to get a sense of people’s views.
Appreciate the reply! It’s a cool way to view it in individual terms. I was thinking in more social terms, however, which I’ve been a little fascinated to find seems to be a little atypical from the replies so far.
This does seem to come closer to what I was wondering about when I originally posted, good eye!
OP asks the real life equivalent of being AFK which, assuming you’re normally regularly online, only really corresponds to being high or sleeping.
The funny thing is, it didn’t occur to me how vague my question was until after I posted and started seeing the replies. That’s made it more fun tbh, and interesting as in this context (online vs. in real life) I’ve not really thought of being online in such individualistic terms as this and some other replies suggest.
Is there something mystical to this?
Does ffmpeg work best standing? Or is it better spread out? Did it work properly if it finished fast?
Does it sometimes seem like commenting in high traffic online spaces feels this way too, not just Reddit?
I was looking for a word that might immediately resolve questions regarding how it might work and the like, to avoid those follow-up questions and free people up to answer however they imagine it would work. It’s…Kinda worked? Aside from a few replies like this, which I don’t mind, I just wanted to encourage people to roll with it as they will
duplicate duplicate, unless there’s something you’d prefer with multiplidicity
Only an existential crisis? What about existential crises?
While Lemmy doesn’t have enough people for each product category yet, have you checked out the community !buyitforlife@slrpnk.net?
There’s also !recommendations@lemmy.world for broader discussion, but it’s not gained much traction yet.
Anyways. I know you probably wanted a story that was more interesting than depressing, but that’s just one that really stuck with me from that point in my life there. I don’t think that’s a normal experience for a Night Auditor to have, so I wouldn’t take my experience as a reason to dissuade anyone from taking the position, but you asked for a story, and so you got one.
Even a depressing story is interesting in its own way, so I appreciate it all the same! I can see why the experience stuck with you, it’s a rough situation to find oneself in for almost all involved
Any odd stories from that job?
Fun part is, that article cites a paper mentioning misgivings with the terminology: AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying. So at the very least I’m not alone on this.
Yeah, on further thought and as I mention in other replies, my thoughts on this are shifting toward the real bug of this being how it’s marketed in many cases (as a digital assistant/research aid) and in turn used, or attempted to be used (as it’s marketed).
perception
This is the problem I take with this, there’s no perception in this software. It’s faulty, misapplied software when one tries to employ it for generating reliable, factual summaries and responses.
It’s not a bad article, honestly, I’m just tired of journalists and academics echoing the language of businesses and their marketing. “Hallucinations” aren’t accurate for this form of AI. These are sophisticated generative text tools, and in my opinion lack any qualities that justify all this fluff terminology personifying them.
Also frankly, I think students have one of the better applications for large-language model AIs than many adults, even those trying to deploy them. Students are using them to do their homework, to generate their papers, exactly one of the basic points of them. Too many adults are acting like these tools should be used in their present form as research aids, but the entire generative basis of them undermines their reliability for this. It’s trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
You don’t want any of the generative capacities of a large-language model AI for research help, you’d instead want whatever text-processing it may be able to do to assemble and provide accurate output.
While largely true, I was also thinking of filtering/sorting systems within specific sites (e.g. stores/archives/etc.) as well, which may result in similar junk results but fewer than with a search engine.
When I wrote “processing”, I meant it in the sense of getting to that “shape” of an appropriate response you describe. If I’d meant this in a conscious sense I would have written, “poorly understood prompt/query”, for what it’s worth, but I see where you were coming from.
(AI confidently BSing)
Isn’t it more accurate to say it’s outputting incorrect information from a poorly processed prompt/query?
Huh, so literally raw html? I know it’s not too difficult, but I have wondered occasionally how many small websites may have been written that way.