• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 31st, 2023
  • xantoxis@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.ml•100 upvotes and I'm doing this tattoo design
    924·
    5 months ago

    When we say LLMs don’t know or understand anything, this is what we mean. This is a perfect example of an “AI” just not having any idea what it’s doing.

    • I’ll start with a bit of praise: It does do a fairly good job of decomposing the elements of Python and the actuary profession into bits that would be representative of those realms.

    But:

    • In the text version of the response, there are already far too many elements for a good tattoo, demonstrating it doesn’t understand tattoo design or even just design
    • In the drawn version, the design uses big blocks of color with no detail, which (even if they looked good on a white background; and they don’t;) would look like shit inked on someone’s skin. So again, no understand of tattoo art.
    • It produces a “simplified version” of the python logo. I assume those elements are the blue and yellow hexagons, which are at least the correct colors. But it doesn’t understand that, for this to be PART OF THE SAME DESIGN, they must be visually connected, not just near each other. It also doesn’t understand that the design is more like a plus; nor that the design is composed of two snakes; nor that the Python logo is ALREADY VERY SIMPLE, nor that the logo, lacking snakes, loses any meaning in its role of representing Python.
    • It says there’s a briefcase and glasses in there. Maybe the brown rectangle? Or is the gray rectangle meant to be a briefcase lying on its side so the handle is visible? No understanding here of how humans process visual information, or what makes a visual representation recognizable to a human brain.
    • Math stuff can be very visually interesting. Lots of mathematical constructs have compelling visuals that go with them. A competent designer could even tie them into the Python stuff in a unified way; like, imagine a bar graph where the bars were snakes, twining around each other in a double helix. You got math, you got Python, you got data analysis. None of this ties together, or is even made to look good on its own. No understanding of what makes something interesting.
    • Everything is just randomly scattered. Once again, no understanding of what design is.

    AIs do not understand anything. They just regurgitate in ways that the algorithm chooses. There’s no attempt to make the algorithm right, or smart, or relevant, or anything except an algorithm that’s just mashing up strings and vectors.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.ml•when google bought datasets from reddit
    51·
    6 months ago

    Sorry, I didn’t know we might be hurting the LLM’s feelings.

    Seriously, why be an apologist for the software? There’s no effective difference between blaming the technology and blaming the companies who are using it uncritically. I could just as easily be an apologist for the company: not their fault they’re using software they were told would produce accurate information out of nonsense on the Internet.

    Neither the tech nor the corps deploying it are blameless here. I’m well aware than an algorithm only does exactly what it’s told to do, but the people who made it are also lying to us about it.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.ml•Thanks ...
    55·
    6 months ago

    These bugs are always opened by IC developers who need help and have little agency. So,

    Closed “won’t fix” with note

    Contributions accepted if you want to deliver the fix. If you are not in a position to dictate to your employer how your time is spent (and, if so, I understand your problem) please report to your manager that you will be unable to use this software without contributing the fix. Alternately, switch to [competitor]. Your manager should understand that the cost to the company of contributing a fix for this bug is less than the switching cost for [competitor]. I wish you luck, either way.

    And then make the above text a template response, so you don’t have to spend your time typing it more than once.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.ml•"I want to live forever in AI"
    4·
    7 months ago

    So, I’m curious.

    What do you think happens in the infinite loop that “runs you” moment to moment? Passing the same instance of consciousness to itself, over and over?

    Consciousness isn’t an instance. It isn’t static, it’s a constantly self-modifying waveform that remembers bits about its former self from moment to moment.

    You can upload it without destroying the original if you can find a way for it to meaningfully interact with processing architecture and media that are digital in nature; and if you can do that without shutting you off. Here’s the kinky part: We can already do this. You can make a device that takes a brain signal and stimulates a remote device; and you can stimulate a brain with a digital signal. Set it up for feedback in a manner similar to the ongoing continuous feedback of our neural structures and you have now extended yourself into a digital device in a meaningful way.

    Then you just keep adding to that architecture gradually, and gradually peeling away redundant bits of the original brain hardware, until most or all of you is being kept alive in the digital device instead of the meat body. To you, it’s continuous and it’s still you on the other end. Tada, consciousness uploaded.