Living, growing, changing cells are pretty damn dissimilar to static circuitry. Neural networks are based on an oversimplified model of neuron cells. The model ignores the fact neurons are constantly growing, shifting, and breaking connections with one another, and flat out does not consider structures and interactions within the cells.
Metaphysics is not required to make the observation that computer programmes are magnitudes less complex than a brain.
The trouble with phrases like ‘neural structures’ and ‘language parsing’ is that these descriptions still play into the “AI” narrative that’s been used to oversell large language models.
Fundamentally, these are statistical weights randomly wired up to other statistical weights, tested and pruned against a huge database. That isn’t language parsing, it’s still just brute-force calculation. The understanding comes from us, from people assigning linguistic meaning to patterns in binary.
From further up the thread
A liberal is someone who:
- Upholds the modern nation state and is thus against monarchy (against whom the first liberals rebelled against)
- Upholds capitalism and market economies, and with it property rights
- Upholds electoral parliamentary systems of governance
- Usually believes in some version of the social contract or similar theory from which the legitimacy of the nation state and capitalism is derived.
This describes the bulk of the Democrat and Republican parties. US politics doesn’t have a left-wing as it is understood in the rest of the world, our center is between two right-wing ideologies.
It’s more like gamers complaining that their favorite game doesn’t get a new update precisely every three months.
Except, these are armchair investors complaining that the market evaluation doesn’t correspond to their “faithfulness”.
*Kinda hard to have an equal discussion when being a woman entails being sexually harassed and occasionally assaulted by a bunch of men, mostly ones you barely know or don’t know at all, on a regular basis before you even hit puberty.*
genuine question, how do you expect it to get any better if you aren’t being civil?
The decision matrix here isn’t [civil engagement ||or|| uncivil engagement], but rather:
[civil engagement and incur non-zero risk of uncivil retaliation ||or|| do not engage]
Non-participation is the safer option, broadly speaking. If your speaking with a stranger, it’s better to let a minor slight slide, than to engage civilly. As you get to know someone better, as you become more familiar with conditions, this chart becomes a secondary consideration or even unnecessary. But with strangers, you never know if you’re dealing with an outlier.
mean
why
why would you do this
“AI” will never shake the connotations science fiction has given it. The association is always going to skew towards positronic brains and Commander Data.
In the world of Actual Machines, “AI” is a term that should barely be tolerated in advertising departments, let alone anything remotely close to R&D
if the frog jumps half way every time, it will never reach the other side of the road… right?
I mean, benefit of the doubt, you get a free meal and an idea of what not to do just based on what they want you to do.
But yeah, should be not allowed. Just talk listen and ask your damn constituents.
dumb luck, mostly
you either work for a living or you own money for a living. You can get more nuanced, but that’s about the long and short of it.
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, I just don’t know which half”
becomes much more funny when you’re dealing with numbers like ∞
wot if they’re running on hexagons rather than squares? HM? Or 3D dodecahedrons?..wait do those tile?
assume infinite time and n number of ants: eventually Langton’s ants will highway-draw the post on your screen
I wanna see Curzon Dax in SNW. Pretty sure the timetables match up there, given he negotiates the Khitomer accords.