So are image classifier models. They were terrible for several years, and eventually improved. LLMs are pretty good at retrieval augmented generation, which is probably the whole idea.

A lay person takes a picture of a beetle. They want to know what it is.

An image classifier correctly identifies it as a long horn, wood boring beetle. It has 5 species with a greater than 80% probably.

Human written and curated taxonomical descriptions are pulled out of a database.

An LLM interprets the complicated language of taxonomy, defining terms and asking the user plain language questions about the beetle.

Maybe this makes the whole process more accessible for lay users. Maybe it helps people understand what questions to be asking for identification. I mean, I’m just guessing at the implementation, but it seems pretty logical to me.

It is my understanding that the advances in classifier models were and are inexorably linked to generative models. Wasn’t Deepdream a fairly crude inversion of existing classifier models?

I’m sorry, but didn’t Google pioneer the image recognition models years ago that Inaturalist uses to help users identify plants and animals? Google can suck it, but perhaps ai has proven it has a place in these applications?

Now that it’s a couple days later, I think I might add a thought to this. It can be invalidating, to have someone ask a victim to empathize with the bully without sufficiently recognizing the victims feelings.

I used to do this sort of thing. I would try to be objective and logical. I learned that this just made my friends feel crazy, like they might be overreacting. I’ve learned to instead start by validating peoples feelings. I try to recognize thier pain, discomfort, and anger first. And, I never blame people for feeling that anger.

I second what the other commenters are saying about forgiveness being for you, not to other person, but can I just rant about how useless it is to say no one can truly be bad? It denies the basic utility of words, in my opinion. If someone is an ass, violent, greedy, etc then they are bad. If they change their ways they are good. We have words to describe greedy, violent, assholes. We call them bad people. Hell, a murderer psychopath? Call them evil. It’s why we have adjectives.

What a neat photo idea

Classic

The joke is your odds of being gainfully self employed.

I wonder if this actually happened to someone or this is the a case of armchair survivalism.

It is? I’d like to read about that

I feel very lucky to work 4 10 hour days rather than 5 8s. Though, it does often feel like a waste of time when we all spend the last hour and a half taking.

deleted by creator

It just looked a lot like an AI image classifier.

I don’t expect current ai are really configured in such a way that they suffer or exhibit more than rudimentary self awareness. But, it’d be very unfortunate to be a sentient, conscious ai in the near future, and to be denied fundinental rights because your thinking is done “on silicone” rather than on meat.

Do you mean conventional software? Typically software doesn’t exhibit emergent properties and operates within the expected parameters. Machine learning and statistically driven software can produce novel results, but typically that is expected. They are designed to behave that way.

Really? I mean, it’s melodramatic, but if you went throughout time and asked writers and intellectuals if a machine could write poetry, solve mathmatical equations, and radicalize people effectively t enough to cause a minor mental health crisis, I think they’d be pretty surprised.

LLMs do expose something about intelligence, which is that much of what we recognize as intelligence and reason can be distilled from sufficiently large quantities of natural language. Not perfectly, but isn’t it just the slightest bit revealing?

A child may hallucinate, lie, misunderstand, etc, but we wouldn’t say the foundations of a complete adult are not there, and we wouldn’t assess the child as not conscious. I’m not saying that LLMs are conscious because they say so (they can be made to say anything), but rather that it’s difficult to be confident that humans possess some special spice of consciousness that LLMs do not, because we can also be convinced to say anything.

LLMs can reason (somewhat unreliably) with a fraction of a human brains compute power while running on hardware that was made for graphics processing. Maybe they are conscious, but only in some pathetically small way, which will only become evident when they scale up, like a child.

I don’t believe that consciousness strictly exist. Probably, the phenomenon emerges from something like the attention schema. Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul. That we evolved it, like legs with which to walk, and just as easily as robots can be made to walk, they can be made to think.

Are current LLMs as intelligent as a human? Not any LLM I’ve seen, but give it 100 trillion parameters instead of 2 trillion and maybe.

Why can’t complex algorithms be conscious? In fact, ai can be directed to reason about themselves, context can be made to be persistent, and we can measure activation parameters showing that they are doing so.

I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here, but, “Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate.” Is subjective, and nearly any ai model, even rudimentary ones, are capable of insisting that they contemplate themselves.

She’s got to be like, 15 years old, right? Looks like three similarly aged friends. Looks like young people having fun to me!