Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "The Guardian" channel.

  1. Genuinely concerned for some of the people featured here.
    114
  2. "Following the science" assumes science is something settled, rather than a set of methods and a means of evaluating the results of structured empirical inquiry.
    14
  3.  @winstonchurchill586  Yes, more than a quarter: 28%. Remarkable, actually.
    5
  4. 4:50 This sounds like a great discussion topic. Specifics matter.
    5
  5. You fall for The Next Big Thing every time, eh?
    5
  6. Suddenly, it is "conspiratorial" to recognize the principles of group psychology? Group dynamics are known to override the rational thinking of the individuals within it, whether that means believing in energy fields or mouthing slogans about "following the science."
    5
  7. @Arthur Morgan Holliday Yes. Some oddly rude and indifferent, some clearly and quite deeply unwell. I stress the word "some." Did anyone miss it? I think not. @Sebastian: These have been a rough 2 1/2 years, and I am worried. Not like things are getting better, hm? :/
    4
  8.  @zando5108  Right. Just this time. "This time is different." You do know ChatGPT has started making errors in mathematics, including flubbing simple questions such as whether a given 6-digit number is prime, correct? Not only that, but when you ask it to show its steps, it has stopped doing so. You do know why, correct? I mean, you have some idea?
    4
  9. ChatGPT has started making inexplicable errors in mathematics, including flubbing simple questions such as whether a given 6-digit number is prime. Not only that, but when you ask it to show its steps, it has stopped doing so. We have some idea why.
    4
  10. ChatGPT has started making inexplicable errors in mathematics, including flubbing simple questions such as whether a given 6-digit number is prime. Not only that, but when you ask it to show its steps, it has stopped doing so.
    4
  11.  @0451K  I thought Russell Brand explained that well in his recent segment on the death of the Queen. I recommend it.
    3
  12.  @cw1738-f4q  Anyway, the burden of proof of AGI is strictly on AGI. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
    3
  13. In the US, the NIH - National Library of Medicine includes a medical journal published by the Armed Forces of India. Looks like a trove of science-based medicine approached from the perspective of a non-Western tradition. I'm off to read.
    3
  14. Excellent point. Made me think of Charles Manson.
    2
  15.  @Jack-mf5lw  (2022 - 1776), result divided by 70, then take the reciprocal. See. I used algebra today.
    2
  16. Don't kid yourself. No one is asking us, none of us is doing anything. We may as well not exist. You'll never see the people behind AI deployment.
    2
  17.  @zando5108  No it doesn't. The models are statistical. It is simply the volume of data that it can process extremely quickly to recognize patterns and create generalizations that is immense and unprecedented. This works beautifully, until it doesn't. It cannot understand the real number line the way people can because it cannot understand infinity the way people can. It cannot be mathematically creative absent humans to verify the result of its processes. This is the linchpin, and shows that it cannot match the human mind. If anyone told you differently, they told you wrong. Now I won't say investors won't make huge bucks on the story. Sure they might.
    2
  18. @cameronwian1738  Ha! Did I say that? Way not to deal with the point. Did you look up why this happens? It appears to be aggregating billions of opinions concerning whether a number is prime. 🤣
    2
  19.  @Jack-mf5lw  Oh I get it. You were talking about her age, not her reign as queen. When she was born, it was not even known that she would be queen.
    1
  20.  @Jack-mf5lw  The original post was about her 70-year reign as queen, not her age.
    1
  21. 😂😂😂😂 get paid for that
    1
  22.  @zando5108  You didn't look up the ChatGPT flaw that I described? 🤣
    1
  23. The models AI uses are statistical. It is simply the volume of data that it can process extremely quickly to recognize patterns and create generalizations that is immense and unprecedented. No group of humans assisted by the computers that have existed prior to AI could possibly process the data AI can process. This works beautifully, . . . until it doesn't. AI cannot understand the real number line the way people do because it cannot understand infinity the way people can. AI cannot be mathematically creative absent humans to verify the result of its processes. This is the linchpin, and shows that it cannot match the human mind. Even the simplest fractal, like the Cantor Set, is beyond it. (Now, I won't say investors won't make huge bucks on the story. Sure they might. In fact it would be shocking if they didn't.)
    1
  24. Redo the title, please.
    1
  25. Few suspected he'd be as bad as he was.
    1