E_Snap t1_je7mu7i wrote

Consoles are a sterile and predictable computing environment— you know exactly what hardware you’re going to be running on, and nothing else will compete for system resources. PCs are not. They could be grandma’s virus-laden netbook from 2008, your own immaculately cared for 4090-powered gaming mega-tower, and everything in between. It’s impossible to account for every edge case along that entire spectrum when developing software.


E_Snap t1_je7k3de wrote

You’d have to audit whatever specific instance of compiler or interpreter they use to run it, too. Remember, Ken Thompson was able to hide an undetectable back door in UNIX by modifying a compiler to add the back door to the kernel whenever it was compiling it, and then modifying the compiler to add the back-door-adding code to the compiler code whenever it found it was compiling itself. Bam, no trace of malware in the source, all the checksums work out, and the only way you’d ever find out is by compiling a clean version of the compiler source with a clean version of the compiler and then starting your audit.


E_Snap t1_jdsht5g wrote

I guess I could have worded it better. What I mean to say is that once they’ve output something, it’s in the record. There’s no pausing to think and go through a few different iterations of the sentence, or evaluating if what they’re about to say has faults. They just output directly, instead of reading what they’re about to output and vetting it.


E_Snap t1_jdsceui wrote

cue video of my boss who left computing in the 90s waving his hands about

“It’S jUsT fAnCy aUtOcOmPlEtE!!!!11111!!! I KnOw bEcAuSe i’M a PrOgRaMmER”

To be fair, he was instrumental in getting the internet where it is today. He also assumes tech stopped evolving when he stopped developing it.


E_Snap t1_jdsbvd0 wrote

Reply to comment by LightVelox in [D] GPT4 and coding problems by enryu42

It’s pretty amazing how many shortcomings of that architecture could be summarized by “It only outputs when directly prompted to output, and won’t read its own output as it’s outputting”. Once these things can continuously take input and output, we’ll probably see quite the rush of advancement.


E_Snap t1_jdjwmkp wrote

Honestly, I have a very hard time believing that. Machine learning has had an almost trailblazing relationship with the neuroscience community for years now, and it’s pretty comical. The number of moments where neuroscientists discover a structure or pattern developed for machine learning years and years ago and and then finally admit “Oh yeah… I guess that is how we worked all along,” is too damn high to be mere coincidence.


E_Snap t1_jdjug2q wrote

That’s a magical requirement, dude. We as humans have to study for literal years on a nonstop feed of examples of other humans’ behavior in order to be a competent individual. Why are you saying that an AI shouldn’t have to go through that same kind of development? At least for them, it only has to happen once. With humans, every instance of the creature starts out flat out pants-on-head rtrdd.


E_Snap t1_jcvzjp3 wrote

I’m not sure why you all have this idea that AI is and will always be like Commander Data from Star Trek. For what it’s worth, that conceptualization of robots dates back to the very roots of the word in the 1920s book Rossum’s Universal Robots. You know, back when they didn’t exist.

In reality, AI will do whatever you train it to do. Tomorrow’s AI will always be able to overcome whatever idiosyncrasies people are exploiting in the AI of today. ChatGPT already inarguably passed the Turing test, which is a signal that we should stop evaluating these systems based on the ideas of last century.


E_Snap t1_jcd16ks wrote

I’ve been using ChatGPT to write all of my sales emails for difficult clients lately, and it has been fantastic. It took what should have been another staffmember at my company and made it into a proofreading duty I can handle while working on other things.

Also… hate to say it, but the fact that you’re using the words “humiliated” and “jailbroken” in this context doesn’t exactly cast a very good light on your understanding of the situation.


E_Snap t1_jccz4ul wrote

Lol no, it’s democracy that’s the problem. Corruption, plutocracy, tribalism, and capitalistic tendencies arise out of even small differences between demographics when they are given the “right” to vote based upon their prejudices, and you’ve already decided that we can’t expect voters to make informed decisions.

People like to slant-quote Churchill and say “Yeah whatever, democracy sucks but it sucks least out of everything we’ve tried,” as if we did a 100% no-reload completion of the game of History and we don’t need to try new things anymore (or give old underutilized ideas another shot). I’m here to say fuck that— we are still evolving our society. Anyone who says that the current status quo is the best we can do is trying to sell you a bridge. All democracy does is placate the masses for trying when the politicians inevitably choose to go their own way anyway.


E_Snap t1_jccs0vy wrote

I thought Reddit’s patented lack of foresight regarding technology was mostly located in /r/technology, and yet…

The way I see it, with the pace at which this field moves, those sorts of objections aren’t worth the energy required to type them. They’ll be obsolete and irrelevant by the time you finish writing them.


E_Snap t1_jcckyyi wrote

It is about personal failings of the population though. If we were able to stop rabidly chasing our own goals at the expense of everyone else, the political elite couldn’t divide and conquer us. Here’s a video explaining how this happens. By manipulating the order in which policies are voted on and always making sure that each successive policy alienates a different out group, politicians play our selfish interests against each other to get us to vote our way out of a stable compromise and into a legal policy that no demographic wants.

This is to say: when politicians start pandering to a rotating cast of a slight majority of the population and telling each group left that they already had their turn and to wait, that’s tantamount to gerrymandering. “Progressive” politics (in name only, obviously) repeatedly fall prey to this. They’ll strategically let each demographic successively drag the window of what is appropriate far into their own court. This wild back-and-forth-and-to-the-side swinging eventually walks the window into a portion of “legal policy space” where the obvious and easily passable compromise between all demographics is something that would be considered shocking and outlandish to most of the general population.


E_Snap t1_jbv1d5q wrote

Just wait, they’ll try to pull some extra bullshit like they did with the “peek” feature that makes all of your windows on every screen temporarily minimize while you’re “group diving” through the taskbar. It’s gonna piss off everyone in the live entertainment tech world so much. Again.