Social Media is not Real Life

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
Can we just be honest? It's time to ghost social media and the billionaires who run it.

It’s not just that Elon Musk bought Twitter. It’s that this is all happening as we careen into the midterm elections, giving us a preview of what’s to come during the 2024 presidential election cycle.

You were fine when Twitter was a Lefitist run company, censoring things that threatened Democrats and favored Republicans. I take it you're not a fan of free speech.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
The only people in the USA who speak about leftists are the red-hat[e] fascists. We don’t even have any socialists in this country, and the social democrats (moderate left) you can count on the fingers of one hand.
Dude. I was just having fun with my spelling fuckup, :lol:.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dude. I was just having fun with my spelling fuckup, :lol:.
And I am taking the opportunity to point out some political dishonesty. In a nation with a hard-right party (they’ve censured their few holdovers in the moderate-right wing) and one representing the center, there is no maga/extremist equivalent among the Democrats.

This despite the windy incessant lies of the alt-press. There is also only a vestigial left wing. Folks like AOC and Ilhan Omar are center-left and would disappear into the political center in one of the parliamentary democratic states of Europe. The actual left, those who seek to distribute ownership of the engines of the economy, have no representation at all.
 
Last edited:

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
And I am taking the opportunity to point out some political dishonesty. In a nation with a hard-right party (they’ve censured their few holdovers in the moderate-right wing) and one representing the center, there is no maga/extremist equivalent among the Democrats.

This despite the windy incessant lies of the alt-press. There is also only a vestigial left wing. Folks like AOC and Ilhan Omar are center-left and would disappear into the political center in one of the parliamentary democratic states of Europe. The actual left, those who seek to distribute ownership of the engines of the economy, have no representation at all.
when i was a kid, you could draw a ven diagram of American attitudes where one circle was democratic voters, and the other was republican voters, and about 85% of each circle would overlap. Most of the differences were about fiscal policy, with a few social program fights to round things out.
draw a ven diagram now and you could leave the democratic circle where it is, but you'd have to move the republican circle to the right so only about 20% of it intersects the stationary democratic circle. While that moves the balance to the right, it doesn't make those in the center leftist, it just makes those to the far right, radicals.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
when i was a kid, you could draw a ven diagram of American attitudes where one circle was democratic voters, and the other was republican voters, and about 85% of each circle would overlap. Most of the differences were about fiscal policy, with a few social program fights to round things out.
draw a ven diagram now and you could leave the democratic circle where it is, but you'd have to move the republican circle to the right so only about 20% of it intersects the stationary democratic circle. While that moves the balance to the right, it doesn't make those in the center leftist, it just makes those to the far right, radicals.
I would go so far as to say that the Republican domain is drawn in a kidney-shape to have no overlap. That is how adversarial our politics are now.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
You know, it is weird reading grownups talk about kid stars. They all seem kinda weird to me.

I dont think I really had any celebrity type role models growing up.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
You know, it is weird reading grownups talk about kid stars. They all seem kinda weird to me.

I dont think I really had any celebrity type role models growing up.
The grownups or the kid stars or both? :lol:

I remember this particular kid star from 2017 when someone suggested we go to the Melkweg in Amsterdam to see Billie Eilish. A small venue that had some of the greatest artists in the world before they became a popular product. 16 bucks for a ticket and I was like meh, never heard of her.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
The grownups or the kid stars or both? :lol:

I remember this particular kid star from 2017 when someone suggested we go to the Melkweg in Amsterdam to see Billie Eilish. A small venue that had some of the greatest artists in the world before they became a popular product. 16 bucks for a ticket and I was like meh, never heard of her.
Both I suppose, but was thinking of kid stars as role models. That would be a cool venue to see a show, would always see it mentioned in old cannabis cup reviews.

It would be nice if more/any kids looked up to Greta, but well, not likely. Standing up for your views is admirable.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
After losing tens of billions of dollars on the metaverse which resembles an early 1990's video game the Zuck is apparently throwing in the towel. Meta is now going to focus on AI.

In 2021 and 2022, Reality Labs, the division housing metaverse projects, recorded a cumulative loss of nearly $24 billion, including $13.7 billion just last year.


 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
An essay that describes in language what Large Language Models are, their limitations -- they are not intelligent, that is a misnomer -- social implications of these artificial language models and some interesting observations of trends and their implications.


It starts with a fable.

Say that A and B, both fluent speakers of English, are independently stranded on two uninhabited islands. They soon discover that previous visitors to these islands have left behind telegraphs and that they can communicate with each other via an underwater cable. A and B start happily typing messages to each other.

Meanwhile, O, a hyperintelligent deep-sea octopus who is unable to visit or observe the two islands, discovers a way to tap into the underwater cable and listen in on A and B’s conversations. O knows nothing about English initially but is very good at detecting statistical patterns. Over time, O learns to predict with great accuracy how B will respond to each of A’s utterances.

Soon, the octopus enters the conversation and starts impersonating B and replying to A. This ruse works for a while, and A believes that O communicates as both she and B do — with meaning and intent. Then one day A calls out: “I’m being attacked by an angry bear. Help me figure out how to defend myself. I’ve got some sticks.” The octopus, impersonating B, fails to help. How could it succeed? The octopus has no referents, no idea what bears or sticks are. No way to give relevant instructions, like to go grab some coconuts and rope and build a catapult. A is in trouble and feels duped. The octopus is exposed as a fraud.


Her point is that we humans read what the machines say and interpret it as if there is a mind on the other side that is speaking to us with intention. However, these LLM have no context or experience in our world. They simply string words together based upon a stochastic model that is based upon how humans use language to communicate. When a model talks about love, their words have no meaning. The model is simply putting words together based upon the algorithm. When we read those words and overlay our own context onto it, then it has meaning. Our minds imagine there is a mind on the other side. And there is none. The model is simply a parrot that repeats our language.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
An essay that describes in language what Large Language Models are, their limitations -- they are not intelligent, that is a misnomer -- social implications of these artificial language models and some interesting observations of trends and their implications.


It starts with a fable.

Say that A and B, both fluent speakers of English, are independently stranded on two uninhabited islands. They soon discover that previous visitors to these islands have left behind telegraphs and that they can communicate with each other via an underwater cable. A and B start happily typing messages to each other.

Meanwhile, O, a hyperintelligent deep-sea octopus who is unable to visit or observe the two islands, discovers a way to tap into the underwater cable and listen in on A and B’s conversations. O knows nothing about English initially but is very good at detecting statistical patterns. Over time, O learns to predict with great accuracy how B will respond to each of A’s utterances.

Soon, the octopus enters the conversation and starts impersonating B and replying to A. This ruse works for a while, and A believes that O communicates as both she and B do — with meaning and intent. Then one day A calls out: “I’m being attacked by an angry bear. Help me figure out how to defend myself. I’ve got some sticks.” The octopus, impersonating B, fails to help. How could it succeed? The octopus has no referents, no idea what bears or sticks are. No way to give relevant instructions, like to go grab some coconuts and rope and build a catapult. A is in trouble and feels duped. The octopus is exposed as a fraud.


Her point is that we humans read what the machines say and interpret it as if there is a mind on the other side that is speaking to us with intention. However, these LLM have no context or experience in our world. They simply string words together based upon a stochastic model that is based upon how humans use language to communicate. When a model talks about love, their words have no meaning. The model is simply putting words together based upon the algorithm. When we read those words and overlay our own context onto it, then it has meaning. Our minds imagine there is a mind on the other side. And there is none. The model is simply a parrot that repeats our language.
those last few sentences are paydirt. People are very good at injecting meaning that is not objectively present. It takes considerable discipline to become aware of this sort of bias.

On a more humorous note, the Turing test would work better without a human in the loop.
 
Top