I don’t think Musk would disagree with that definition and I bet he even likes it.
The key word here is “significant”. That’s the part that clearly matters to him, based on his actions. I don’t care about the man and I don’t think he’s a genius, but he does not look stupid or delusional either.
Musk spreads disinformation very deliberately for the purpose of being significant. Just as his chatbot says.
I keep seeing news that the Russian economy is perfectly fine… no, wait it’s in shambles… no it’s actually even better than before… no, people can’t even find bread… no, sanctions are killing it… and so on. And this is not even from different sources; different articles on the same (I hope reputable) sources.
I know that it’s hard to get a read of these things even when not in the middle of a war with lots of disinformation happening on both sides. And I also know that indicators of the economy are tricky to read and often in contradiction. But these swings are so extreme that I don’t know what to make of these articles any longer.
Wait, is that a valid argument? “You, sir are infringing on my claim that this in your pocket is MY wallet and this picture on your driver’s license is in fact MY picture.”
Russia and Ukraine are two countries that have thrown everything they had at each other: from good soldiers, to inmates, to good people who’d probably never held a weapon before.
At this point I imagine that having troops who are alive and actual trained soldiers, not emotionally and physically drained (if not outright mutilated) by years of fighting is a big advantage
If I was taken from my home and suddenly sent to fight for my country, no matter how full of patriotic love I might be, one North Korean child with a knife would be enough to take me out.
I think I’m with him on this one. Replacing all the people on social with AI agents would give us back so much free time! And we could even restart socializing for real.
Go on Zuckerberg, give us a Facebook made only of AI agents creating fake pictures of inexistent gatherings and posting them, so other AIs can recommend them and million of other AIs can comment on them!
You are an unsung hero, Zuckerberg, but one day they’ll understand and thank you
on the other hand, when Putin’s done killing off most of their own present and future workforce in a senseless war and completely tanking his own economy, that might be the equivalent of like $3
I assume that guy on the poster is dead, then?
Socials and the Internet in general would be a much better place if people stopped believing and blindly resharing everything they read, AI-generated or not.
I’m not sure we, as a society, are ready to trust ML models to do things that might affect lives. This is true for self-driving cars and I expect it to be even more true for medicine. In particular, we can’t accept ML failures, even when they get to a point where they are statistically less likely than human errors.
I don’t know if this is currently true or not, so please don’t shoot me for this specific example, but IF we were to have reliable stats that everything else being equal, self-driving cars cause less accidents than humans, a machine error will always be weird and alien and harder for us to justify than a human one.
“He was drinking too much because his partner left him”, “she was suffering from a health condition and had an episode while driving”… we have the illusion that we understand humans and (to an extent) that this understanding helps us predict who we can trust not to drive us to our death or not to misdiagnose some STI and have our genitals wither. But machines? Even if they were 20% more reliable than humans, how would we know which ones we can trust?
Most things to do with Green Energy. Don’t get me wrong, I think solar panels or wind turbines are great. I just think that most of the reported figures are technically correct but chosen to give a misleadingly positive impression of the gains.
Relevant smbc: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/capacity
yes, that was all completely wrong. If Trump had been the one on top of the building and had fallen down (maybe accidentally hitting a stray bullet on his way down)… now THAT would have been closer
I think they don’t matter with outrage, because outrage explodes in ways that are hard to predict. I mean, I can see the problem with the ad now that it has been pointed out to me. After reading about it repeatedly, I now find it bad and ridiculous and what were they thinking? But at a first look, as a test audience I would have probably rated it as “meh, ok”.
ah I get what you’re saying., thanks! “Good” means that what the machine outputs should be statistically similar (based on comparing billions of parameters) to the provided training data, so if the training data gradually gains more examples of e.g. noses being attached to the wrong side of the head, the model also grows more likely to generate similar output.
AKA “shit, looks like now we need to re-hire some of those engineers”
TBH those same colleagues were probably just copy/pasting code from the first google result or stackoverflow answer, so arguably AI did make them more productive at what they do
I only have a limited and basic understanding of Machine Learning, but doesn’t training models basically work like: “you, machine, spit out several versions of stuff and I, programmer, give you a way of evaluating how ‘good’ they are, so over time you ‘learn’ to generate better stuff”? Theoretically giving a newer model the output of a previous one should improve on the result, if the new model has a way of evaluating “improved”.
If I feed a ML model with pictures of eldritch beings and tell them that “this is what a human face looks like” I don’t think it’s surprising that quality deteriorates. What am I missing?
see? It says it right here: “that thing you just did”
Good luck with that, Indian Priests. God personally stepped in to save Trump from being shot (not the hero firefighter, who didn’t meet the minimum income requirement of the Truly Blessed). He just took the tip of his ear, which is practically circumcision.
deleted by creator
I’m not a master diplomat but this is negotiation 101: don’t look too keen to negotiate, start from a position of strength.
Trump’s opening offer was to allow Putin to keep whatever he’s managed to invade and, by most accounts, Russia is now gaining territory again. Plus, Trump is clearly not so keen to continue supporting Ukraine militarily and economically (not to speak of his stance on NATO) and in Europe we are weak, divided and also increasingly voting for our own small versions of Trump (Trumpets?). Put these things together and why would Putin get all chummy and sit down to negotiate now? He’s signaling strength and taking a position of “YOU want to end this war, not me, so if you want me to stop, you better come begging and bringing gifts”.