digital luciferase

@wdormann@infosec.exchange I think we're at the point where it's an opiate of the masses. I gotta say I'm looking forward to seeing people go cold turkey, especially those who have the habit of taking LLM output and pretending it to be their own acumen at work. Or those who use ChatGPT to craft forum rebuttals and such - when this tide goes out, we'll truly see who brought their swim trunks and who never had them

@lifewithtrees@mstdn.social to be more precise and accurate, fuck no i won't do these things and anyone who wants me to is cordially invited to take a long, athletic flying fuck at an industrial woodchipper instead.

@futurebird@sauropods.win at the risk of dorksplaining a pedantic nonpoint, we really need to stop calling these LLMs AI. I agree that they aren't the next big thing. They also aren't AI. the larger point i have in mind is that we aren't done with the AI phase, just one of its preliminaries.

@david_chisnall i mean yeah but at some point we have to talk about how these private roads are largely controlled by a cartel of competing business interests, and if those competing business interests were capable of solving this problem which they've had enormous incentive to solve, they are electing not to do it. i think batteries are absolutely the answer rn this very instant; i don't think anyone anywhere has forgotten that rail freight is an option. Getting them to use it isn't some simple matter of someone having an epiphany that railroads exist and that green tech can be used to power them.

@catsalad has someone yet cried o lawd he comin'?

@aby@aus.social one thinks this is fine, the other thinks it is highly undognified

i wonder if web merchants have a metric for the users they lose when their MFA gets too pushy and it becomes easier to just go to another merchant. I have lost track of the times that I've gone online to buy from instacart and doordash and even Amazon and Xed out of it after a while because I didn't want to get up and go find my phone and they were insisting i get a code from it. There's a lot of enterprises for whom MFA just represents an easy way to get your phone number while they also shift the burden of their security to you, the user. And to boot it's an incredibly easy thing to penetrate via social engineering, considering PINs are often visible on the lock screen of a phone when texted to that phone. And these days i have a fairly low threshold for how many hoops i'm willing to jump through to 'confirm my identity' and I can't be the only one. So yeah. I wonder if there's a metric out there for transactions lost because the mfa got too heavy handed

ever since i read Thomas Tuchel described as 'Nosferatu on a golf holiday' I have been unable to get it out of my mind. #worldcup #england

@futurebird@sauropods.win @dalias@hachyderm.io drone swarm intelligence is a very busy field these days. to me it's a natural place to look for emergent properties of intelligence; i tend to think we'll find our next breakthroughs in autonomous intelligence with a 'that's funny' moment instead of a 'aha exactly as i thought' and drone swarms get complex *fast*

@dalias@hachyderm.io @futurebird@sauropods.win if we are what marketers say we are, we're doomed. I myself do not think they are the arbiters of reality, but I won't stop you if you do. It is certain that people constantly market 'smart' featured things as AI, when not even LLM features actual intelligence. I have to say instead that I don't really GAF what they make of things, though, or what gullible people decide they must mean. I think one can be two different things at the same time -- entirely skeptical of the current crop of businesses and products that are hyping the 'intelligence' of what they are offering for sale, and simultaneously cognizant that a true autonomic general intelligence will be a very different beast altogether.

@dalias@hachyderm.io @futurebird@sauropods.win no, that's just the niche you've assigned me out of mental frustration. I don't believe in a benevolent techno-bro post-singularity future; i think it's much more likely that we'll all be dead in fifty years than that we'll be holding hands all watched over by machines of loving grace. One does not need to believe that nuclear weapons are a good thing to have understood that in the 1930s and 40s many governments were seeking them, that we have people still trying to build them today. I feel the same way about actual artificial intelligence. It may well come to kill us all and replace us atop the food chain. You see, I believe that Fermi's Paradox points one way -- species likely do not survive their full technological sophistication. I think it's a lot more likely that the first alien intelligence anyone ever encounters will be fully synthetic. No, i don't like it. But there it is.

weather report: the sun wants you to die

@0x00string@infosec.exchange the flavor is fantastic but only a handful of people are bold enough like arm me ghostpepperandhennyaudacity

i mean, the view was ok, but all things told it was more of a mezzaseven-or-so than a mezzanine

#nowplaying underrated old banger from TCM - Blow Out https://youtu.be/-tvl8sDu9vo?si=Pul-uZdazdZPPO8S

@toolbear@tech.lgbt @futurebird@sauropods.win is it? The author's point about perception is wonderfully post-modern and worthy of consideration about LLMs but I'm not sure it is applicable to the scale of AGI. It's also kind of hard to understand the scope of what they're saying AI is and isn't, underneath all the terms-based uncertainty. Part of that is no doubt down to the idiosyncrasies of their prose construction -- i am loath to mock someone for writing unclearly in a non-native language but as someone who has both written and edited in English for a living I struggled a bit to elucidate what they were getting at. True AI will only be so easily confused as being human to the degree that it intends to be deceptive but at the risk of dramaticising -- the difference between LLM and AI will be unmistakable.

@0x00string@infosec.exchange instant urban legend that the bull escaped

@nyanbinary@infosec.exchange oh, this'll end well

@0x00string@infosec.exchange fourrrr twenty is the place to be

@kc5jim@infosec.exchange the highest limb can be attained by only the fiercest of apex predators, where all below, knowing or otherwise, are living at their mercy

@dalias@hachyderm.io @futurebird@sauropods.win no true scotsman, you say? :) I would remind you that you were the one who chose to define AI as how it has been marketed to the masses. I don't think it's particularly useful, myself, but I won't quibble. The Turing test remains the standard even though many people recognize the problem with it , not because it is flawless but precisely because there is no more objective workable definition in play. That's the point. For someone who insists that AI means what marketers say it means, you are now curiously and mysteriously deaf as to what they say about the Turing Test. But at least you're harking back to what AI researchers are actually saying now instead of Madison Avenue.

@willb@infosec.exchange https://youtu.be/o5FPPoLqkCk?si=uJ-WarahyHw6cj96 ;)

@futurebird@sauropods.win @dalias@hachyderm.io it's a fair point. I should stipulate that it's a distillation of the verbal aspect of humanity. Not every aspect of humanity is renderable in words. On the other hand, since text is wholly how we are now communicating, and the essence of the Turing test itself, your point may be a distinction without a difference. How else do we bruit this about now, but in ways renderable in text? :)

@dalias@hachyderm.io @futurebird@sauropods.win ...not at all. the most common definition scientists apply to an artificial intelligence is one that is hopelessly subjective -- passing a Turing test. No one is making an 'if than' argument to substantiate ai, they are making the 'walk and talk like a duck' argument. Most know it can't be objectively defined by us, or at least, we haven't figured out how to do it yet. The rest of your post seems quite vehement, like you want to fight about something; best of luck with those sentiments, whatever they ultimately are, once rendered noncombative and speaking in normal tones. If they are meant to convey a profound distrust of the technologies that people try to use to replace workers, you are wise -- but that alone won't stop them, nor will insisting that it's all the same hype thing.

@MFDOOMALLCAPS@metalhead. +1 for playing the man who taught us that the shark eats ice. track 15 on Conrad & Sohn is and remains one of my favorite tracks of all time. Just sublime.

@futurebird@sauropods.win @dalias@hachyderm.io I'm sure you saw the bit about Dawkins spending time with an LLM and announcing that he thinks it's actual intelligence somehow. To me, that illustrates the danger of approaching it as something that resembles the simulation of a human mind. LLMs ARE the distillation of the human mind in a way. A rotgut, prohibition era, bathtub-gin type of distillation but there you have it. I think it's fundamentally more likely that we would decide non-intelligent actors are intelligent because they ape that model, when an actual generated intellect would be.... whatever it is. We made gods in our image, too. We tend to understand our world via human metaphor. There's a scenario for AI where no one recognizes what it is until it cannot be stopped, because people disregarded it at first as it didn't fit the image they had for AI. I myself have the hopelessly subjective notion that if artificial general intelligence arises it will be under no particular urge to clue us in that it exists :)

@0x00string@infosec.exchange you see the problem before us. you cannot deny that the time has come for the Chicken Resistance to rise

@buchanan.today careful, i'm told that Big Beer is particularly powerful down under. They won't like sensible talk like that.

@krypt3ia@infosec.exchange well yes, but doomed originally just meant 'taxed'

i am getting the oddest urge to watch Hudson Hawk again. man, what's that about

@0x00string@infosec.exchange you catch that massive attack tom waits thing when it hit?

@dalias@hachyderm.io @futurebird@sauropods.win "I assigned it because you're giving off al lthe signs." And I am willing to bet you posted that without a shred of intentional irony, too so far you've said that a science crafted by human minds to sort through the text outputs of human minds in order to explain things to human minds, have nothing to do with human minds. And that space is big. The 'space is big' argument is simple. it's plausible and we don't know enough to disprove it as an alternative explanation for where 'everyone is', but for you to dismiss Fermi's Paradox the same way you airily dismissed a Turing test, when your definitions for both depend on *marketing chatter* of all things.... when anyone can search and find many many examples of scientists discussing Fermi's Paradox and the concept of the Great Filter just as they can find current discussion of the Turing test? Yeah, I think that juxtaposition says more about you than your words do. At least, i'd surmise it. But you do you.

@futurebird@sauropods.win are there any actual conservatives left? i thought it was clown shoes all the way down

@krypt3ia@infosec.exchange well, yah, but they meant it as 'judged how much tax you owe on tax day in the Domesday Book' it wasn't til later on that it gained the modern connotion and poetic conceit of being doomed to a particular fate

@0x00string@infosec.exchange just like the ai, chachi

@0x00string@infosec.exchange there's a copy of 'Silent Running' by Mike and the Mechanics right inside your doorway use it only in emergencies

@wafflesies@infosec.exchange i feel judged

@muddle@infosec.exchange no deal unless extra sour cream