Radiologists don’t usually see patients.

Oh, no, see they will blame the doctor that was treating them and would normally get a radiologist report, but instead got an AI report.

AI is actually pretty good at x-ray interpretation but it does get it wrong, as do radiologists. The safe option is to have the radiologist review ai output.

I don’t disagree. My point is about how we measure success. For a state apparatus that is meant to prevent terrorism, the lack of airplane based terrorism is not necessarily a sign that it’s not needed. It can also be a sign of it’s success.

However, it’s a giant organization with lots of useless parts, too. Like parting down grandma, or more likely abuela.

Prevention of terrorist attacks is the point. Having no terror attacks doesn’t mean there would be none without them. As I said , security theatre, patting down grandma, is not the success. I’d be inclined to listen to the experts. However, I’m worried this administration no longer has any.

When it’s an agency that’s about prevention, the lack of terrorism incidents is not really a failure on their part. All the security theatre nonsense is obviously wasteful but that is a different point.

No need to get snarky with the person who is actually saying positive things to you.

Irish seafood chowder with soda bread, although it’s not really a sandwich.

French onion soup and a croque madame or croque monsieur. Not usually eaten together but both are amazing.

Not going to argue with all the vietnames posts. Banh Mi and Pho are excellent.

The American staple of cream of tomato with a grilled cheese works as a great pairing.

If dumplings count as a sandwich then Chinese noodle dumpling soups are also excellent.

I thought self hosting for email was a complete pain these days due to spam ruining it for everyone? Your email will be deemed spam and you’ll get lots of spam.

I don’t think it’s called lying when he doesn’t have a plan. He’s just saying whatever on the moment.

Obviously, there are lots of lies sprinkled in there too, as it’s Trump.

Good, let the hate flow through you.

Yes, they thought people would blame Dems of they shouted long and hard enough. Instead, they are taking more and more of the blame and becoming the boy who cried wolf, which won’t help their mod terms when a caravan of immigrants magically appears.

The analogy takes one sentence to explain. Your explanation took 5 paragraphs.

That is the point of an analogy. To make it “analagous” to something familiar, so as to avoid explanation.

You keep on asking someone to refute your facts. They are not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether the analogy works. It does as it represents the fact that the ai does not understand it’s output. The analogy does not reference the search nor the human that is doing the reading.

The point is that the AI LLM does not understand what it is outputting, in the same way that a person does not need to understand a Wikipedia page to read it.

Rather than a Wikipedia page, perhaps you’d get the analogy better if they said reading a page from an advanced physics textbook. The point is that the information being presented accurately does not infer understanding in the case of AI. That was represented perfectly fine in the analogy, which was it’s purpose.

They simplified it, and also used hyperbole. That’s not the same as motte and bailey.

You’re being too literal, while still being imprecise. It’s likely why you’re struggling with what the analogy is for.

Unless maybe you’re not from the area of the world.

No, the analogy is about not understanding but regurgitating data. It’s more complex than that but the gist is that they don’t understand or have knowledge of the data being presented.

They are statistical models for what is desirable output. They don’t understand what they give as an answer. That is why they halluncinate information that sounds plausible and confident.

We’re not refuting your point about how the technology works, but rather that the person you replied to provided a poor analogy. They didn’t. It served the purpose it was designed to do. If you don’t understand that, that’s on you, not them. Maybe ask an ai to explain. ;)

Ana analogy does not need to be precise. It expresses a comparison for easier understanding. It is not what LLMs do. However what you’ve expressed is simplified also. So by your standard, it is not useful for the discussion.

So maybe get your head out of your ass and try to understand what people are trying to express instead of correcting them when they are not incorrect.

If precision was of that much importance to you, you would have a different opinion of LLMs.

You’re discounting the fact that a human reading Wikipedia will attribute intonation and tone to the text to give further context and meaning. I think the analogy is good. Its not precise but it is the same thing.

I do think AI has a useful purpose and is here to stay. I don’t think it’s groundbreaking like the AI companies want us to think. The bubble will burst and then we’ll see where the cards lie.

OpenAI has lost their lead and I expect they will start to struggle with further funding. There are quite a few warning signs. The price of oil is likely to increase power prices generally and cause construction delays and cost rises. Both will hamper their plans. They still don’t have a viable model for profit.

What you’re describing is not a structural change. What you’re describing has happened before. You’re describing a bubble.

I do think there is a structural change, similar to how there has been for the arrival of computers, the arrival of the internet, the arrival of covid and WFH etc. LLMs have changed how many people will work. However. They aren’t able to replace workers.

The onlystructural concern I have currently is that the models and processing power become out of reach for all but giant corporations and data centres. As there are open models and much of the changes are happening across many companies and individual programmers, I don’t see that happening. Perhaps the best models and training data will be out of reach but there are enough people vested in open source and proficient, that should things start to get out of reach and computing become less available, I’d expect that to change. Similar to how windows led to Linux which is now better.

It would depend on the context. The response depends on who is asking, their openness to learn and the reason for the statement. In isolation, it appears inflammatory rather than factual. It can be both.

Or telling someone stupid to be more clever, as the case may be.