- Merits
- 397
Add something like 
as an option for reactions which could indicate full agreement and would enhance the like-emoji?
as an option for reactions which could indicate full agreement and would enhance the like-emoji?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Forum proposal - Add 100 emoji to reactions (💯)
- Thread starter Physics131
- Start date
-
- Tags
- forum suggestions
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
- Merits
- 715
The devil lies in details "Maybe"Maybe I like to fully agree?
Kind regards,
The Traveler
(6-7)
- Merits
- 1,444
I think if it weren't because of the confused and/or annoyed reactions to it, that 6-7 meme wouldn't have become popular at all. I can't say I like it myself, but if I were 13 I probably would. Annoying and confusing adults is quite funny when one's a child or early teen.
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
- Merits
- 715
It seems good to read your thoughts in a transparent way.I will speak for myself. I use the like, to just acknowledge or say I like a post, it has nothing to do with agreement. I like posts that I completely disagree with, but appreciate the thought process or something else about it.
The
One love
It confuses people that like to think on a deeper level because it induces hyper-rationalization driven by a specific form of apophenia known as "Compensatory Pattern Perception" - in order to downregulate the frustration stemming from the obscure meaning behind the meme, and the resulting lack of a sense of control, the mind manufactures control by imposing a familiar structure (i.e. your reference to the 6-7-8 thingy). It's really quite a fascinating thing if you look at it from a cognitive-behavioral standpoint. But in terms of pure meme quality, it's about as bad as it getsAhw, I can fully see why kids love this:
- Because 7 8 9 -> 7 ate 9
- 6 * 7 = 42
- Best one: It confuses the hell out of people! And I am one of those that really enjoys the moments where you can clearly see people slowly mentally breaking down due to this. I just love this enforcement of (critical) out of the box thinking
Kind regards,
The Traveler
- Merits
- 1,382
Agree, it's about the same reason why my family can solve certain escape rooms that fully fit our thinking in record time, while at the same time we completely fail other escape rooms that can easily be solved by a small group of your average teenagers, because we easily move into way too complex forms of thinking.
Yeah, it's def not one of the best out there.But in terms of pure meme quality, it's about as bad as it gets
I guess you might like this one a lot more
:
Kind regards,
The Traveler
- Merits
- 1,444
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
- Merits
- 715
dont forget about git blameAgree, it's about the same reason why my family can solve certain escape rooms that fully fit our thinking in record time, while at the same time we completely fail other escape rooms that can easily be solved by a small group of your average teenagers.
Yeah, it's def not one of the best out there.
I guess you might like this one a lot more
View attachment 107388
Kind regards,
The Traveler
- Merits
- 948
I mean me being me and the monkey wrenches I throw, I appreciate that small part of it too. Unfortunately, it seems to have gotten out of hand. I'd hate to be an educator, call on a student to answer a question (that's not math related) and they respond with 6-7. Or I have to discipline them for poor and/or disruptive behavior, and they don't take me seriously or respectfully, instead responding with 6-7.
One love
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
- Merits
- 715
passing popcorn to @Voidmatrix 
- Merits
- 948
- Merits
- 1,444
Not exactly the same, but it reminded me of one of the best acknowledgment pages ever in a manual: Scsh Reference Manual
- Merits
- 948
- Merits
- 948
Not related, but I am dead!
One love
One love
LuxObscura
Titanium Teammate
- Merits
- 715
I think that has been enough loughing for me today
- Merits
- 178
The amount of tech illiteracy and ignorance is what worries me. We are living on the same planet, and these people make choices that affect everyone.Not related, but I am dead!
- Merits
- 948
This video highlights how people don't really know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Like, they're trying to use high level concepts that they don't actually grasp or understand evidenced my the contradiction, fallacy, and nonsense they go on about. It also highlights something for me that Turing may have not been trying to highlight, and that's how we don't have the cognitive apparatus to handle this. If someone thinks they're talking to a person and not a machine when talking to a machine, it is not guaranteed that it is sentient. It's simply the point at which we can't discern the difference. For all we know, it's not sentient and it's programming is so advanced that it tricks us. This is an epistemic, ontological, linguistic and philosophy of mind issue, things that most people don't pay any attention to. Nor do they want to... it's not easy.Not related, but I am dead!
One love
We weren't ready.
One love
- Merits
- 1,382
Agree with this vision. And the Turing test was actually one of the first ones to be easily bypassed by modern A.I., making for many new revisions of the Turing test.
And for me it's quit surprising to see that in general people (seemingly mostly from the newer generation) are lesser inclined to use this new technology to enhance themselves, like for example using it as an extra, improved, search and learning tool. And in contrast actually seem to use it more to replace their own (critical) thinking and well thought out opinions with generic A.I. mash.
I've seen already quite a few instances where A.I. presents urban myths, where the A.I. is truly convinced they are genuinely true, this of course being the result of many LLM's being trained on mass publicly available data coming from all over the internet.
In the past each new generation has of course found their own new ways of doing their thing, however with A.I. the pace of this is now going so fast that it is able to much better circumvent the current social guarding posts, and in that proces being able to easily plant certain ideas in the minds of a huge part of the population, where that population is seemingly unable or unwilling to investigate if those ideas are real or just A.I. enhanced glazing, or even having more malicious intents like mass propaganda, and this all on a scale and speed we have never seen before.
For now the cat is out of the bag, and due to global competition it's not likely to be put back in the foreseeable future, or even getting better guard rails plus large parts of the population getting mandatory training on how to correctly consume the information coming from A.I.'s.
And indeed it does not matter much, if humans cannot see the difference anymore, between true A.G.I. and A.I. just emulating it well enough.
Kind regards,
The Traveler
- Merits
- 1,444
I'm not aware that the Turing test has been tried in its original formulation, where both a human and a machine try to convince another human that they are human and the other is a machine. They may still be able to pass that, but probably not in its commercial embodiments, as the simplest trick for the human would be to start talking about topics the commercial models aren't allowed to mention. This is of course not a limitation of the technology itself. Still, the original version of the test is harder than the versions that I've seen, where a human has a one on one conversation with an unknown entity and rates them as human or machine afterwards.
Anyways, to me it's bizarre the identification between producing speech and intelligence. I think it's just a manifestation of typical mind fallacy and anthropomorphization, and not that different from attributing intentions to a storm.
As I see it, a prerequisite for intelligence, shared by life at all points of the intelligence spectrum, is a set of values/goals to pursue and maximize, some very common ones being self preservation and reproduction. In that sense, it could be argued that a simple thermostat is closer to intelligence than a LLM, as it acts upon the world to pursue and preserve a certain, "desirable" state. The attempts to make LLMs closer to this are lackluster, post-hoc, bolted-on approaches that essentially fail. I don't think language is a good medium for core intelligence: it just enables already intelligent beings to get to further levels of intelligence. It's a bad foundation for intelligence. With all its limitations and acknowledging that they're far from complex intelligence, I think reinforcement learning systems are often much closer to actual, animal intelligence, and it's a much more solid foundation.
Hopefully, once the bubble pops and the hype moves onto another thing, LLMs will be studied more rigorously by actual scientists without the goal of attracting even more investment. They are a very interesting technology that essentially solved natural language processing, and deserve to be studied seriously.
