How?

No, you don’t need to pay attention now because of Tesla autopilot, it’ll drive for you /s

There are plenty of EVs below the median price Americans are paying for new cars ~$50k. People aren’t buying EVs because they don’t like them / the dealerships aren’t pushing them, not the price as they’re willing to shell out even more for a top of the line pickup.

It’s not fair competition if labor standards are far lower in the country being imported from.

Can someone explain to me why this is bad?

It’s a separate app so you don’t have to engage with it if you don’t want to

It’s helping people to control their experience, which IMO is a good thing

This is also probably helping with the development of the platform in general, if someone has a good UI idea but doesn’t have the technical know how to implement it, now they can. They can then test it out, refine it, share it and then maybe it gets added to the main UI. Same with feed algorithms. It makes development more bottom up.

Was it artificial scarcity or actual scarcity? Bluesky is and has been orders of magnitude larger then mastodon and scaling to that size probably takes time. If they took all the twitter refugees at once it’s probably crash the server.

Speaking as someone who just vibe coded a client for lemmy, no matter how customizable you make your UI it will not be as customizable as having an LLM edit the code directly. The UI I wanted was completely different then the scroll based UI that most current lemmy clients have so the only way to make it was through vibe coding. You can check it out at stakswipe.com and you’ll see there was no way to customize a standard scroll based interface to have the same swiping behavior.

Also customizable UIs tend to be very menu heavy, so yeah you may be able to move the like button to the top right of the post, but to do so you’ll have to navigate through three layers of menus and settings to get there. Whereas with AI you can just type " move the like button to the top right". Customizing using natural language you know is a way better experience then figuring out a bunch of configuration and templating software that’s different for each app.

test

The bar is so low and they still manage to limbo under it

North Korea really puts a lie to the whole “if Iran gets nukes there gonna bomb NYC tomorrow” . Kim has had nukes for a decade and has never done anything with them.

We just can’t imagine the “bad guys” would want nukes for defense and deterrence and not to just blow us all up immediately because the movies tell us that’s what bad guys do.

Were the Virginia planters keeping sex slaves capitalists though? Most of the capitalists at the time were up north where slavery was illegal by the founding.

What exactly is this for? I understand LLMs have there limits with understanding physical reality, but at least they have a use case of theoretically automating the “symbolic work” ie moving symbols around on a screen or piece of paper, that white collar workers do.

Yes it’ll never be able to cook a meal or change a lightbulb, but neither will this without a significant enhancement in robotics to embody this AI. What’s the use case? Being able to better tell you how to throw a ball then a person?

I mean he is sort of right on this bill, no one will really notice it or give a shit.

Republicans, along with a lot of democrats, don’t actually want housing affordability because that would require home prices to go down and most of their constituents, especially those who vote, are home owners and don’t want that to happen.

Their only solution is to make it easier to borrow more money so they can keep house prices inflated while allowing some new people to enter into the market with bigger and bigger debt.

Here’s the source it’s from open AI but it is peer reviewed. Here’s another source that uses it as a baseline to compare the relative scores and according to the tables in 2023 it got a 610, putting it around the 75th percentile, and that’s just for math which the open AI study showed it did about 5% worse then it’s average so ~80th percentile for a total score. Again this is for students who are usually more prepared for the SAT than the general population, so it’s still probably in the 90th percentile for the general population.

Again for the car wash example that is not declaritive knowledge, like the pizza glue that is knowledge derived from experience and reason which I’ve said that LLMs aren’t the best at. The fact that they had to make a riddle for the AI to trip it up if anything shows how good it is. If it was as bad as you say it is then anyone could easily trip it up and get it to give a wrong answer and a study like that wouldn’t be relevant. Seriously if you think the LLM is so inaccurate, come up with your own test to stump it, it should be easy by the way you talk about them.

I think you are underestimating how accurate LLMs are because you probably don’t use them much, and only see there mistakes posted for memes. No one’s going to post the 99 times an LLM gives the correct answer, but the one time it says to put glue on pizza it’s going to go viral. So if your only view on LLM output is from posts, you’re going to think it’s way worse than it is.

Even if you mark it down for incorrect answers it’s still going to beat most people. An LLM can score in the 90th percentile in the SAT, and around the 80th percentile in the LSAT. If you take into account that people taking those tests are more prepared for them then the general population they’re probably in the 99th percentile. It doesn’t matter if you mark wrong answers negative if it’s getting 95% of the answers correctly and your average percent is getting 50% of the answers correctly.

People guess things too and will also state things confidently that they don’t completely know. If a person has a little bit of knowledge on a subject they are likely to give confidently wrong answers due to the dunning Krueger effect. If you pick a random person you’re probably just as likely to get one of these people as you are that the LLM is wrong. So is it more useful to ask something that has a 95% chance to be correct, and 5% chance to be confidently wrong, or ask a person who has a 50% chance of being correct, that includes those who guessed correctly, 5% chance of being confidently wrong and a 45% chance of saying I don’t know.

If you’re doubting my percentages on the accuracy of LLMs I’d encourage you to test them yourself. See if you can stump it on declaritive knowledge, it’s harder than the posts make it seem.

They are good at making declarative statements.
That’s not the same thing.

What’s the difference between making correct declaritive statements and having declaritive knowledge? If I am able to accurately state every president of the US, wouldn’t you say I have knowledge of the list of US presidents? The only way you can judge my declaritive knowledge of something is by my ability to make accurate declaritive statements, that’s what a test is. If making accurate declaritive statements is not the measure of declaritive knowledge then what is?

An LLM will give more accurate declaritive statements on more question then any human can, would that not mean that an LLM has more declaritive knowledge than any human? So is it not more trustworthy for giving declaritive statements than any random human? Would you not trust an LLMs answer on who the 4th president is over a random human?

I never said I don’t believe in truth, I said there are different definitions of truth and different kinds of truth, the study of this is called epistemology and I’d encourage you to look into it to better understand truth. I believe in truth derived from experience, and reasoning from first principles, 2+2=4 is true, I had coffee this morning is true. For things outside of my direct experience or that can’t be reasoned I accept that truth can be derived from trustworthy external sources. Therefore Washington was the first president is true because I’ve heard it many times from multiple trustworthy sources.

The question is whether you believe truth can be derived from external sources or are you a Cartesian skeptic? It doesn’t seem like it because that sort of worldview is very limiting. The question remains how do you know that Washington was the first president? Or even better how do you know that an LLM said to put glue on pizza? You never experienced it giving that answer, you got the idea from another source, maybe you saw a picture that could’ve easily been edited. The truth of that idea can only be derived from the trustworthiness of that source.

LLMs can’t know everything, again they have good declaritive knowledge but they completely lack experiential knowledge and struggle with reasoning. Knowing not to put glue on pizza is knowledge gained from experience: glue tastes bad and is usually inedible, and reasoning: therefore adding glue to pizza will make it taste bad and be inedible.

Every day you also probably see a new post of humans being blatantly wrong, does that mean humans can’t know things? No it just means humans have a limited area of knowledge. Same with an LLM, it can know that Washington was the first president while not knowing to not put glue on pizza, so you have to be careful what you ask it, just like when you ask human something outside their area of expertise.

How do you know that George Washington is the first president? You weren’t around in 1784, you have no experiential knowledge, you only have declarative knowledge of it, you read it from a book or heard it from a person enough to repeat the fact when asked. You are guessing what your history teacher would have said in elementary school. Declaritive knowledge is just memory and repetition, and an LLM can do memory and repetition.

Whether an LLM can determine truth depends on your definition of truth. If truth can only be obtained from experience and reasoning from first principles then an LLM can’t determine truth. Then a statement like George Washington was the first president can’t be true then because you can’t derive it from experience or first principles, you weren’t there, no one alive was there. George Washington was the first president derives it’s validity and truth from the consensus of trustworthy people who say it’s true. An LLM can derive this sort of truth by determining the consensus of its training data assuming its training data is from trustworthy sources or the more trustworthy sources are more reinforced.

Iran named Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader, a choice that former CIA director has labeled as ‘unfortunate.’

This is unfortunate for the us because it seems Trump’s plan was to do the same thing he did with Maduro and hoped a Delcy Rodriguez would take charge and capitulate.

Mojtaba is not Delcy, he’s a hardliner backed mostly by the IRGC (Iranian army) so there isn’t going to be a quick end to this war since Trump no longer has a stopping point where he can declare victory and leave.

An LLM has a great deal of declarative knowledge. Eg. It knows that the first president of the US is George Washington. Like humans it has built up this knowledge through reinforcement, the more a fact is reinforced by external sources, the more you/ it knows it. Like with humans when it reaches the edge of its knowledge base it will guess. If I ask someone who the 4th president of the US was they may guess Monroe, that person isn’t lying, it’s just an area that hasn’t been reinforced (studied) as much so they are making their best guess, LLMs do the same. That doesn’t mean that person cannot and will not ever know the 4th president, it just means they need more reinforcement / training / studying.

Humans as well as LLMs have a declarative knowledge area with a lot of grey area between knowing and not knowing. It’d be like a spectrum starting on one end with stuff that has been reinforced many times by people with high authority, what is your name would probably be the furthest on one side, to another end with stuff you’ve never heard or heard from untrustworthy sources. LLMs may not have the other dimension of trustworthiness that people do but the humans training it will usually compensate that with more repetition from trustworthy sources, eg. They’ll put 10 copies of the new York times and only one of younewsnow.com or whatever in the training data.