• @Amoeba_Girl
    link
    English
    1726 months ago

    From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

    First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

    Ohhh, that is sneaky!

    • @Amoeba_Girl
      link
      English
      1266 months ago

      What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say

      Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”

      And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!

      • @ebu
        link
        English
        366 months ago

        […W]hen examining only those who passed the exam (i.e. licensed or license-pending attorneys), GPT-4’s performance is estimated to drop to 48th percentile overall, and 15th percentile on essays.

        officially Not The Worst™, so clearly AI is going to take over law and governments any day now

        also. what the hell is going on in that other reply thread. just a parade of people incorrecting each other going “LLM’s don’t work like [bad analogy], they work like [even worse analogy]”. did we hit too many buzzwords?

        • genuineparts
          link
          fedilink
          English
          186 months ago

          But LLM’s don’t work like Typewriters, they work like Microwaves!

          • @froztbyte
            link
            English
            14
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            oh is that how come I get so much popcorn around these discussions? 🤔 makes sense when you think about it!

        • @Amoeba_Girl
          link
          English
          18
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          “Nooo you don’t get it, LLMs are supposed to be shit”

        • @froztbyte
          link
          English
          136 months ago

          I was considering interjecting in there but I don’t want to get it on my clothes, so I’m content just watching from the outside.

          Not great, but I’m also not obligated to teach anyone anything, soooooo

        • @Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -116 months ago

          Not the worst? 48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”. I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket. And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

          In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

          • @ebu
            link
            English
            276 months ago

            48th percentile is basically “average lawyer”.

            good thing all of law is just answering multiple-choice tests

            I don’t need a Supreme Court lawyer to argue my parking ticket.

            because judges looooove reading AI garbage and will definitely be willing to work with someone who is just repeatedly stuffing legal-sounding keywords into google docs and mashing “generate”

            And if you train the LLM with specific case law and use RAG can get much better.

            “guys our keyword-stuffing techniques aren’t working, we need a system to stuff EVEN MORE KEYWORDS into the keyword reassembler”

            In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter

            oh i would love to read those court documents

            and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate

            wow, negative time saved! okay so your lawyer has to read and parse several paragraphs of statistical word salad, scrap 80+% of it because it’s legalese-flavored gobbledygook, and then try to write around and reformat the remaining 20% into something that’s syntactically and legally coherent – you know, the thing their profession is literally on the line for. good idea

            what promptfondlers continuously seem to fail to understand is that verification is the hard step. literally anyone on the planet can write a legal letter if they don’t care about its quality or the ramifications of sending it to a judge in their criminal defense trial. part of being a lawyer is being able to tell actual legal arguments from bullshit, and when you hire an attorney, that is the skill you are paying for. not how many paragraphs of bullshit they can spit out per minute

            they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices. Maybe not a revolution but still a win.

            “but the line is going up!! see?! sure we’re constantly losing cases and/or getting them thrown out because we’re spamming documents full of nonsense at the court clerk, but we’re doing it so quickly!!”

              • @ebu
                link
                English
                196 months ago

                it’s funny how your first choice of insult is accusing me of not being deep enough into llm garbage. like, uh, yeah, why would i be

                but also how dare you – i’ll have you know i only choose the most finely-tuned, artisinally-crafted models for my lawyering and/or furry erotic roleplaying needs

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                156 months ago

                what the fuck kind of reply is this

            • @Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -106 months ago

              You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

              Of course it’s even easier not checking them at all and submitting garbage, but one should have learned in 3rd grade not to submit copy-pastes from Wikipedia or any website.

              This one is on human stupidity, not artifical intelligence.

              • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                196 months ago

                so your process of getting legal advice is:

                1. ask chatgpt, which will output convincing blob of text, with references and sources that might or might be not real, relevant, or make sense, some of which you won’t be able to judge
                2. then, ask a real lawyer about this, which means that they have to make sense of the situation on their own but also dig through machine generated drivel, which means that they need more time for that, and this means extra cost/wasted effort

                how does that simplify anything

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  186 months ago

                  Look it’s a really cheap and fast way of going from potential lawsuit to actual damages! That’s progress, that is!

                  [ed note: since I can’t markup-joke it in a way that survives lemmy: to be read in pratchett voice)

              • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                186 months ago

                You understand that getting a list of sources and checking them is easier than finding them on your own, right?

                that’s one weirdass assumption. when you know what are you looking for, the opposite is true. few months back i’ve authored a review chapter in my (very narrow) field, and while “getting a list of sources” part took maybe a day or two with a few scopus searches, combing through them, finding out what’s relevant and making a coherent story out of all of this was harder and took more time. if you don’t know where even to start, maybe you should ask a professional? especially when alternative is just going in raw into the court of law, defending whatever is at stake with a few paragraphs of possibly nonsensical spicy autocomplete output

          • @V0ldek
            link
            English
            126 months ago

            In a worst case scenario if my local lawyer can use AI to generate a letter and just quickly go through it to make sure it didn’t hallucinate, they can process more clients, offer faster service and cheaper prices.

            It’s a good thing people are so good at vigilance tasks and don’t tend to fall onto just relying on the automation.

      • @Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        336 months ago

        That’s like saying a person reading a book before a quiz is doing it open book because they have the memory of reading that book.

          • @Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            266 months ago

            Except it’s not, because they can’t perfectly recall everything.

            It’s more like reading every book in the world, and someone asking you what comes next after “And I…”.

            • DessertStorms
              link
              fedilink
              21
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              But the AI isn’t “recalling” in the same way you do, it doesn’t “remember” what it “read”, it “reads” on demand and has instant access to essentially all of the information available online it was trained on (E: though it’s becoming more or less the same thing, and is definitely the same when it comes to law books for example), from which it collects the necessary details if and when it needs it.

              So yes, it is literally “sat” there with all the books open in front of it, and the ability to pinpoint a bit of information in any one of all the books in milliseconds.

              • @Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                6
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                It doesn’t read on demand, it reads once when it’s being trained, and it later recalls what it learnt from that training.

                Training LLMs takes a very long time and a lot of hardware power.

                • DessertStorms
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  It doesn’t read on demand

                  Yes, it does, from the information it was trained on (or - stored), which like you say, requires a lot of hardware power so it can be accessed on demand. It isn’t just manifesting the information out of thin air, and it definitely doesn’t “remember” in the same way we do (E: even the best photographic memory isn’t the same as an indexable one).

            • David GerardOPMA
              link
              English
              156 months ago

              and in conclusion an AI is very like an elephant, particularly the back end

            • @Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              10
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I mean you still gotta understand some shit for Ctrl+F to be helpful. If you’ve ever taken an open book quiz without prior study you’ll learn pretty quick that open book does NOT = easy A (depending on the class / prof I guess, but you get the gist).

              So, open book Ctrl-F’able bar exam, I could probably get an okay score just on key word matching, not knowing jack shit about law; but it’d be far from a perfect score. Current state of machine learning appears to be in a comparable boat.

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  106 months ago

                  your post shows a serious lack of comprehension. just because so many of the posters in this thread are idiots didn’t mean you have to participate too.

                  (CPU time extremely counts, and resource-wise with these things it’s really quite a lot)

          • @bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            20
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I’m not a big AI guy but it’s really not quite like that, models do NOT contain all the data they were trained on.

            Edit: I have no idea what’s going on down below this comment

            • @selfA
              link
              English
              286 months ago

              I’m not a big AI guy

              we can tell

                • @selfA
                  link
                  English
                  186 months ago

                  what a weird opportunity for someone to burn a throwaway account. not even gonna dig into what you’ve imagined the other guy is right about, given he didn’t post any information of value

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  86 months ago

                  [:popcorn intensifies:]

            • @sc_griffith
              link
              English
              11
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              that’s a misleading and meaningless way of putting it. if I rip a page out of my textbook and bring it into an exam room, I do not have with me all the data in my textbook. and yet

              • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                06 months ago

                It doesn’t do that, either. LLMs retain the linguistic patterns found in textbooks, nothing more. It’s remarkable that they can do so much with this information alone, but it’s still a far cry from genuine intelligence.

                • @zogwarg
                  link
                  English
                  16
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  And yet they can spit out copyrighted material verbatim, or near-verbatim, how strange and peculiar.

                • @Amoeba_Girl
                  link
                  English
                  14
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Yeah, even setting aside the intelligence claims, I know I’d be feeling a lot more positive about LLMs as a fun theoretical tool if they weren’t being sold as personal assistants or search engine replacements etc, which even the apologists here admit they’re really really bad at.

                  (Also I’d argue “linguistic patterns” is pushing it. “Textual patterns” more like, it’s not supposed to have any idea about grammar or even about what “text” is.) (I say “supposed to” because who knows what sort of hacks they’re running under the hood.)

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              46 months ago

              Modified Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 9:17:13 AM GMT+02:00 Edit: I have no idea what’s going on down below this comment

              lol. at least you’re honest about it

        • @V0ldek
          link
          English
          21
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I’m not even going to engage in this thread cause it’s a tar pit, but I do think I have the appropriate analogy.

          When taking certain exams in my CS programme you were allowed to have notes but with two restrictions:

          1. Have to be handwritten;
          2. have to fit on a single A4 page.

          The idea was that you needed to actually put a lot of work into making it, since the entire material was obviously the size of a fucking book and not an A4 page, and you couldn’t just print/copy it from somewhere. So you really needed to distill the information and make a thought map or an index for yourself.

          Compare that to an ML model that is allowed to train on data however long it wants, as long as the result is a fixed-dimension matrix with parameters that helps it answer questions with high reliability.

          It’s not the same as an open book, but it’s definitely not closed book either. And the LLMs have billions of parameters in the matrix, literal gigabytes of data on their notes. The entire text of War and Peace is ~3MB for comparison. An LLM is a library of trained notes.

          • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -86 months ago

            My question to you is how is it different than a human in this regard? I would go to class, study the material, hope to retain it, so I could then apply that knowledge on the test.

            The ai is trained on the data, “hopes” to retain it, so it can apply it on the test. It’s not storing the book, so what’s the actual difference?

            And if you have an answer to that, my follow up would be “what’s the effective difference?” If we stick an ai and a human in a closed room and give them a test, why does it matter the intricacies of how they are storing and recalling the data?

            • @V0ldek
              link
              English
              196 months ago

              I’m not sure what you even mean by “how is it different”, but for starters a human can actually get a good mark at the bar and spicy autocomplete clearly cannot.

              • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -86 months ago

                spicy autocomplete clearly cannot.

                What you are basing this “it clearly cannot” on? Because an early iteration of it was mediocre at it? The first ICE cars were slower than horses, I’m afraid this statement may be the equivalent of someone pointing at that and saying “cars can’t get good at going fast.”

                But I specifically asked “in this regard”, referring to taking a test after previously having trained yourself on the data.

                • @V0ldek
                  link
                  English
                  196 months ago

                  What you are basing this “it clearly cannot” on?

                  I asked Gemini and it told me that ChatGPT can’t do shit, I’m not gonna question it.

              • @V0ldek
                link
                English
                11
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Give Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie billions of dollars

                I mean, if we took all net worth of Sam Altman and split it between these two guys who at least benefited humanity with their work we’d get at least a step closer to justice in the universe.

                Getting a Turing award: $1M

                Dropping out of Stanford to work on something unironically called “Loopt”: Priceless

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              116 months ago

              holy fuck you’re a moron

              please go read a book, and look at some art. no, marvel media doesn’t count.

              • @JohnBierce
                link
                English
                126 months ago

                Me, about to suggest some actually really good, thought provoking Marvel comics that somehow got made alongside the relentless superhero soap opera: oh wait now isn’t the time, we’re dunking on the AI bro

          • @Ozone6363@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -86 months ago

            I’m not even going to engage in this thread cause it’s a tar pit, but I do think I have the appropriate analogy.

            Proceeds to actively engage in the thread multiple times

            • @V0ldek
              link
              English
              14
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I never claimed to be good at self-restraint okay, everyone has their vices

              You’re acting as if you never ate a full bar of chocolate after you told yourself you wouldn’t

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                76 months ago

                amazed that that one reply was what they felt their contribution here had to be

        • @bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -26 months ago

          The word parameters here must be defined. Is it the weight they are talking about or the input being used to answer the question? For the former, yeah, it’s like a person was reading a book and not an open book at all. But if it were used in the input, then it is practically an open book. They have the context on the same input.

      • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.

        This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.

        • @Soyweiser
          link
          English
          236 months ago

          Dont anthropomorphise. There is quite the difference between a human and an advanced lookuptable.

          • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -6
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.

            • @Soyweiser
              link
              English
              136 months ago

              I don’t think we are turing computable. So I don’t think we are fancy LUTs.

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                86 months ago

                Heretic! Burn the witch!….wait what did they say about ….!

            • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              126 months ago

              You ever meet an ai researcher with a background in biology? I’ve discussed this stuff with one. She disagrees with Turing about machines thinking including when ai is in the picture. They process information very differently from how biology does

              • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -76 months ago

                This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.

                But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?

                • @selfA
                  link
                  English
                  196 months ago

                  so to summarize, your only contributions to this thread are to go “well uh you just don’t know how LLMs work” while providing absolutely no detail of your own, and reporting our regulars for “Civility” when they rightly called you out for being a fucking idiot who’s way out of their depth

                  how fucking embarrassing for you

                • @Amoeba_Girl
                  link
                  English
                  136 months ago

                  You’re asking how to tell the difference between a chatbot and a human being?

          • Phoenixz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -66 months ago

            Well… I do agree with you but human brains are basically big prediction engines that use lookup tables, experience, to navigate around life. Obviously a super simplification, and LLMs are nowhere near humans, but it is quite a step in the direction.

            • @Soyweiser
              link
              English
              166 months ago

              Well, I don’t think humans are turing computable, so I disagree with you there. Which should have been clear from my initial post.

              Fun fact, what you just said about how humans are just computers is also part of dianetics. Amazing how it happened in 2 different cults.

            • @ebu
              link
              English
              15
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              ░S░T░O░C░H░A░S░T░I░C░P░A░R░R░O░T░I░N░B░I░O░

            • @gerikson
              link
              English
              146 months ago

              Do you have any foundation for that model of human sentience, apart from feels?

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                126 months ago

                inb4 “it’s just, like, common sense, man”

            • flere-imsaho
              link
              English
              146 months ago

              oh my, you’re such a confluence of bad takes (racist, transphobic, creepy and ignorant of the technical and biological topics you’re pontificating about.)

              • @selfA
                link
                English
                116 months ago

                I dug into their post history and god you’re fucking right

        • flere-imsaho
          link
          English
          186 months ago

          LLMs know nothing. literally. they cannot.

          • @Amoeba_Girl
            link
            English
            156 months ago

            Yeah but neither did Socrates

            • David GerardOPMA
              link
              English
              176 months ago

              but he at least was smug about it

          • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -76 months ago

            I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.

            But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.

            But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              206 months ago

              nearly every word of your post demonstrates a comprehensively thorough lack of understanding of how this shit works

              it also demonstrates why you’re lost about the “effective difference”

              I don’t mean this aggressively, but you really don’t have any concrete idea of wtf you’re talking about, and it shows

            • flere-imsaho
              link
              English
              196 months ago

              i guess it comes down to a philosophical question

              no, it doesn’t, and it’s not a philosophical question (and neither is this a question of philosophy).

              the software simply has no cognitive capabilities.

              • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -36 months ago

                I’m not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:

                What’s the effective difference?

                • flere-imsaho
                  link
                  English
                  166 months ago

                  (…) perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, comprehension, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making (…)

                • @braxy29@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -76 months ago

                  don’t know why you got downvoted, an LLM is essentially a chinese room, and whether such a room “knows” is still the question.

            • @YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM
              link
              English
              186 months ago

              Yeah, it’s a philosophical question, which means you need a philosophical answer. Spitballing won’t help you figure shit out a priori because it turns out that learning how to think a priori effectively takes years of hard graft and is called “studying philosophy”. You should be asking people like me what “know” means in this context and what distinguishes memory in human beings from “memory” in an LLM (a great deal, as it happens!)

            • @Amoeba_Girl
              link
              English
              156 months ago

              don’t compare your child to a chatbot wtf

              • @Soyweiser
                link
                English
                146 months ago

                The dehumanization that happens just because people think LLMs are impressive (they are, just not that impressive) is insane.

                • @ebu
                  link
                  English
                  96 months ago

                  need to be able to think LLM’s are impressive, probably

                  surely tech will save us all, right?

        • @exanime@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 months ago

          Because a machine that “forgets” stuff it reads seems rather useless… considering it was a multiple choice style exam and, as a machine, Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized, it should have scored perfect almost all the time.

          • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            06 months ago

            Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized

            I feel like this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs are trained.

            • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              126 months ago

              They’re auto complete machines. All they fundamentally do is match words together. If it was trained on the answers and still couldn’t reproduce the correct word matches, it failed.

                • @blakestaceyA
                  link
                  English
                  136 months ago

                  How about I ban you for being obnoxious instead?

                • @selfA
                  link
                  English
                  96 months ago

                  how about fuck off

              • @YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -9
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                They aren’t auto complete machines, they are neural networks. Why are you trying to explain it when you clearly don’t have the first idea of how things work?

                • @selfA
                  link
                  English
                  126 months ago

                  the very funny thing is, all of the garden variety free text autocomplete systems I’ve worked with have been implemented using neural nets. it’s not like it’s a particularly new or novel approach. but surely the AI bros coming into this thread know that and they’re not just regurgitating buzzwords, right?

            • @YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -9
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Don’t worry friend, you are correct.

              Edit: Lets see some intelligent responses rather than downvotes. Bunch off teens majoring in “AI”.

      • @booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -46 months ago

        I don’t think you understand the type of multiple choice questions involved. Here’s a real question:

        A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father.

        At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense.

        How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?

        (A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.

        (B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense.

        © Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.

        (D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force.

        Memorizing the book itself doesn’t teach how to answer this type of question. It requires actual application of concepts to the new facts being given.

        • @Amoeba_Girl
          link
          English
          14
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yes that is indeed the sort of question I was expecting. But anyway good thing the LLM didn’t have just one book, but oodles of books and expert opinion and past exam data at its disposal! Oh wait it didn’t help and the machine especially made to give correct answers failed to give correct answers :(

        • @selfA
          link
          English
          116 months ago

          thanks for posting this long, pointless shit twice in this thread for no discernible reason

        • @V0ldek
          link
          English
          96 months ago

          Lol, it literally takes 5s to search for this, come up with the book and read

          The defendant has offered evidence of having acted in self-defense.

          as the first sentence. How could you claim having that memorised wouldn’t help?

    • @selfA
      link
      English
      286 months ago

      thank fuck sama invented the concept of doing a shit job

      • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -16 months ago

        I mean, it’s not shit at everything; it can be quite useful in the right context (GitHub Copilot is a prime example). Still, it doesn’t surprise me that these first-party LLM benchmarks are full of smoke and mirrors.

        • @selfA
          link
          English
          256 months ago

          GitHub Copilot

          christ

            • @FredFig
              link
              English
              166 months ago

              Eclipse could generate templates for me, and I think we collectively agreed to stop using Eclipse like 20 years ago, so why are we trying to bring it back.

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                9
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                hey hey hey, don’t forget about android studio! that kept inflicting the pain of eclipse on many for years!

          • @selfA
            link
            English
            216 months ago

            it’s always fucking “boilerplate” with these assholes, isn’t it? I don’t know how so many people got into this field and didn’t figure out the template, snippet, or macro engines in their editors

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              126 months ago

              “hey copilot buddy please write me a http server for a guestbook application I can demo on my blog”

          • @QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            66 months ago

            That GitHub Copilot and friends are useful? I would argue that their utility is rather subjective, but there are indications that it improves developer productivity.

            I’m unsure if you’ve used tools like GH Copilot before, but it primarily operates through “completions” (“spicy autocorrect” in its truest form) rather than a chatbot-like interface. It’s mostly good for filling out boilerplate and code that has a single obvious solution; not game-changing intelligence by any means, but useful in relieving the programmer of various menial tasks.

            May I ask, what evidence are you hoping to see in particular?

              • @o7___o7
                link
                English
                5
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                all in all: underwhelming. I remain promptdubious.

                I know I’m six months late to the party but how do you like “promptcritical”?

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  56 months ago

                  yar I thought of that at the time too but with “gendercritical” having been used by ghouls I felt like the well might’ve been poisoned. still don’t really have a good one :|

                • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  prompt critical is already a term of art in nuclear energy and it’s a state that you’d very, very much avoid (unless that was the intention of course)

            • @Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              136 months ago

              I too want a taxi driver that doesn’t know how to drive a car but can adjust the little TV content in the back.
              Psh I mean all he has to do is step on the gas pedal and the car does all the work anyways right? I’m glad he doesn’t have to think to much about so he has more time to get the thermostat just right.

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                116 months ago

                “hi you seem to be fearing for your life! here’s a calming advert”

                • @o7___o7
                  link
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  The moral equivalent of “peril-sensitive shades” will be the killer app for augmented reality headsets.

              • @LargeMarge@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -26 months ago

                I mean…yea? That’s kind of the point. It’s not driving, it’s the copilot. You’re the one driving, and it will get the thermostat right because you’re busy operating the vehicle and want to keep your attention on the road. That seems useful to me.

                If you already have an idea of the code you want to write and start typing it, Copilot can help auto complete so you can focus on actually solving whatever problem you’re working on instead of searching for the correct syntax online. I understand shitting on AI is fun and there’s plenty of valid criticisms to be made, but this is actually kind of useful.

                • @selfA
                  link
                  English
                  136 months ago

                  how could we possibly be critical of the technology that at best replicates basic editor functionality (templating, syntax completion), outputs wildly incorrect code, and burns rainforests?

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  116 months ago

                  “Ah but see, there is no agency, there is merely emergent behaviour! It is none of our choices that drive this, but merely the ideas some have had that drive this engine of our doom. Alas, we can do nothing about this outcome!”

            • @selfA
              link
              English
              136 months ago

              May I ask, what evidence are you hoping to see in particular?

              holy fuck shut the fuck up

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                116 months ago

                near-verbatim sealioning in tyol 2024. who says satire is dead

    • David GerardOPMA
      link
      English
      236 months ago

      416 updoots, what on earth

      • @froztbyte
        link
        English
        106 months ago

        You’re a man of the people, david

        (Sorry I can’t tag you appropriately ritenao, because of reasons jank)

        ((Also yes the italic is all overtone meanings))

    • @iamnearlysmart
      link
      English
      136 months ago

      You are welcome. /s

      • Anti AI hype Indian here. Though I’ve been classifying galaxies on zooniverse from time to time.
    • @V0ldek
      link
      English
      86 months ago

      AGI = A Group of Indians.

    • @froztbyte
      link
      English
      66 months ago

      I hope you don’t mean to imply that it got it wrong because Indians would get the bar exam wrong, do you?

      • Tb0n3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I mean there have been numerous occasions where companies touting “AI” have actually just been using Indian labor. It’s so common infact that “Actually Indians” is an honest to god meme.

        • @V0ldek
          link
          English
          86 months ago

          Ye but I don’t think the meme applies here? This particular lie is statistical malpractice, not “someone else wrote the bar for it”.

          • @froztbyte
            link
            English
            106 months ago

            I don’t cut people a lot of slack on that sort of remark because more often that not it’s some “huehuehue” (read phonetically) racism

            the fact that the esteemed poster has remained unengaged on my follow-up post (despite the first reply being pretty fast) kinda smells too

              • @froztbyte
                link
                English
                66 months ago

                So, is that your final answer?

                • Tb0n3
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -66 months ago

                  My answer is what you think of me doesn’t matter and I do not care. There is no point in me expending energy at all in bothering.

        • @froztbyte
          link
          English
          76 months ago

          I’m quite aware of the context of the reference, but you still haven’t clarified your use here. “It’s not mine, it’s a meme” doesn’t really do much

  • @walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    306 months ago

    I asked AI to summarize the article since it’s paywalled. It didn’t say anything about lying, should I trust it?

    • David GerardOPMA
      link
      English
      386 months ago

      As a large language model, absolutely

  • @pyrex
    link
    English
    126 months ago

    It sounds like ChatGPT is eligible for a degree in business!

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    126 months ago

    It’s almost like we can’t make a machine conscious until we know what makes a human conscious, and it’s obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn’t make them conscious

    Time to start listening to Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory as the evidence piles up - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936

    • @blakestaceyA
      link
      English
      32
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The given link contains exactly zero evidence in favor of Orchestrated Objective Reduction — “something interesting observed in vitro using UV spectroscopy” is a far cry from anything having biological relevance, let alone significance for understanding consciousness. And it’s not like Orch-OR deserves the lofty label of theory, anyway; it’s an ill-defined, under-specified, ad hoc proposal to throw out quantum mechanics and replace it with something else.

      The fact that programs built to do spicy autocomplete turn out to do spicy autocomplete has, as far as I can tell, zero implications for any theory of consciousness one way or the other.

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -7
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Bro the main objection to Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm for Quatnum stuff to happen there, and then they found Quantum stuff in the brain… So… not sure how it’s not suggestive of the reality of Orch-OR

        Edit: Btw, I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Orch-OR is “Trying to throw out Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something else”, considering that it’s dependent upon Quantum Mechanics, and we have demonstrated that “Quantum Biology” is a thing in plants - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/ and in birds - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01725-1

        So why not the brain?

        • @selfA
          link
          English
          216 months ago

          it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them

          • @o7___o7
            link
            English
            19
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            it’s very important to me that you don’t type the words “Blake Stacey” into a search engine while explaining quote unquote Quatnum stuff to them

            randoms from /all wandering into the vale of sneers: https://www.buttersafe.com/2008/10/23/the-detour/

            • @200fifty
              link
              English
              76 months ago

              Psst, check the usernames of the people in this thread!

              • @blakestaceyA
                link
                English
                126 months ago

                Who needs usernames when you have “context clues” instead? :-P

                • @pyrex
                  link
                  English
                  86 months ago

                  If it helps, I know who you are and will still happily tell you incorrect information about yourself and your profession if asked to!

          • Queen HawlSera
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -66 months ago

            Oh I see… I didn’t realize you were trying to tell me I was talking to Blake Stacey or that he was respected in Quantum Mechanics. I completely misinterpreted what you were trying to tell me. I blame it on the inability of text to properly convey sarcasm.

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              86 months ago

              you couldn’t even be affronted with wit? dire

              • Queen HawlSera
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -56 months ago

                I had mis-interpreted the comment to along the lines of something like “You’re just copying and pasting what you heard of Spirit Science aren’t you?”

                My most humble apologizes. Maybe I just wasn’t paying hard enough attention.

        • @blakestaceyA
          link
          English
          176 months ago

          Kludging an “objective reduction” process into the dynamics is throwing out quantum mechanics and replacing it with something else. And because Orch-OR is not quantum mechanics, every observation that a quantum effect might be biologically important somewhere is irrelevant. Orch-OR isn’t “quantum biology”, it’s pixie-dust biology.

    • @V0ldek
      link
      English
      116 months ago

      Orch-OR

      Never heard of this thing but just reading through the wiki

      An essential feature of Penrose’s theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a “non-computable” influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry.

      Neither randomly nor alorithmically, rather magically. Like really, what the fuck else could you mean by “non-computable” in there that would be distinguishable from magic?

      Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truths, which relates to Penrose’s ideas concerning the three worlds: the physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In Shadows of the Mind (1994), Penrose briefly indicates that this Platonic world could also include aesthetic and ethical values, but he does not commit to this further hypothesis.

      And this is just crankery with absolutely no mathematical meaning. Also pure mathematical truths are not outside of the physical world, what the fuck would that even mean bro.

      I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.

    • @V0ldek
      link
      English
      96 months ago

      and it’s obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn’t make them conscious

      This is like 101 of bad logic, “this sentence is false because I failed to prove it just now”.

    • @decivex@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      76 months ago

      Throwing out emergentism because some linear algebra failed to replicate it is a pretty bad take.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      You’re right that consciousness and intelligence are not the same. Our language tends to conflate the two.

      However, evolution created consciousness over billions of years by emergent factors and no source of specific direction besides being more successful at reproduction. We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could. The big problem would be recognizing it for what it is when it’s here.

        • @Amoeba_Girl
          link
          English
          86 months ago

          I mean, assuming it is at all possible (or rather that the problem even means anything), I suppose four billion years is a rather generous deadline.

        • @WolfLink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          If I practice trying to shoot hoops every day I’m going to get one in a lot sooner than you will just kicking at the ball every time you walk by.

  • Steve
    link
    English
    126 months ago

    sort by controversial did not disappoint :)

  • @froztbyte
    link
    English
    75 months ago

    this thread enters the pantheon of things I’ll occasionally return to when I need a laugh, joining the likes of bash.org (rip) and other qdbs

      • @froztbyte
        link
        English
        55 months ago

        It does every couple of years, remains to be seen if this one is permanent. Has been a while though…