Not sure why someone downvoted you. That’s exactly what the term means in this context. It’s those confidently written answers that contain false or fabricated information.
And this seems like the biggest limitation for the LLM approach. The model just knows that a certain set of tokens tends to follow another set of tokens.
It has no understanding of what the tokens represent. So it does a great job of producing sentences that look meaningful, but any actual meaning in them is purely incidental.
Most people just jump from the first “shit wagon on fire” which is Xitter to the next close “shit wagon”. Because it was the new “thing” and all the “influencer” are there 🤚😲🤚.
But Twitter has been massively losing advertisers, and that is what will kill it rather than losing users. Unless Elon goes sunk cost fallacy on us and funds it directly in which case he can keep it alive perpetually.
I had this discussion when chatgpt first blew up. The amount of this kind of stuff will increase, but it has always been there and I strongly doubt it will convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.
But with the larger amount they can manage, they will reach a wider willing audience. Russian propaganda has been incredibly effective and if the bottleneck was humans, that was removed or is being removed.
I don’t think so. People still have a need for interaction with a real human and infinite generated content just feels hollow. Sure, it’ll satisfy some people and maybe that’s a good thing but I don’t think it’s going to replace or even barely supplement real social interaction
I don’t think it will on a broad scale, but some percentage of people will fall victim to it. It’s just like how only 1% of mobile gamers pay for anything but the percent that does pays a LOT.
I think it will happen. Multiplayer video games already match people with bots that are presented as if they were human players, and 99.9% of players don’t care. As long as a game makes you feel like you’re playing against other humans, most people consider that good enough. Similarly, as long as a bot on Instagram or Twitter feels human enough to be enjoyable to interact with, users won’t care that they aren’t actually human.
It depends much on the game, environment, people involved.
Npc ai has come a far way and the thrill of playing live with people is a real competition. And its only just started to get good enough to intimidate social/emotional behavior.
massive realistic single player historic events, like battlefields - yay
the social aspect of social media and online comments - nah
front and helpdesk assistants, maybe even a certified therapist ai - yea
I’m with you except for the therapist one. Ain’t no way the AI we have currently or anything even close to what we have now could be a therapist. The human connection is the #1 most important thing in therapy and being a therapist takes way too much contextual understanding.
Ai we have now, not so much. But in a few generations?
I have experience with quite a few therapists/psychologist/doctors/psychiatrists and the most common issue i find is that many of them are old and all of them carry human biases. Ai is biased like us but i think there is more room to create more objective reasoning.
You can be your best self by purchasing a subscription to Brawndo recommended by the AI friend guzzling fossil fuels and water in the middle of whatever desert their hardware resides.
If I felt like I was forming a “friendship” with one of these artificial personalities, I’d want more control - not in a maniacal way, but because I wouldn’t trust Meta (or whoever) not to say “meh, this isn’t profitable, so we’re shutting it down next month.”
We’re already far too dependent on corporations, but in most cases, they haven’t had the power to emotionally damage us in this specific way. I don’t want to give them that kind of power over me.
Right but it’s relevant to how news is portrayed and what kind of content we think should be posted here. I think it’s a great post to spark that discussion
He baits the press and they always byte it. Guy doesn’t really need to spend much on marketing for his products since due to the fact the press (even Lemmy) hate him, he always get free marketing.
Look at the bright X sign. He put it there, they forced him to remove it, a fine was paid of about $4k. During that time the press wouldn’t shut up about the sign. We’re speaking about Reuters level media giving him free marketing. Even Lemmy didn’t shut up about it. He got millions of dollars in free marketing with the stunt, and this is just one example.
I’m guessing he purposely is fucking up things to show on media, he made a rebrand from Twitter to X without spending a dime on marketing.
I know there is the old adage of all publicity is good publicity, but he’s only getting negative publicity right now and it appears to not be helping him, especially not on Twitter, which is still hemorrhaging users and advertisers. Tesla’s stock is down and their CFO just quit. Neuralink is getting investigated by the feds. And now he wants to look like an idiot by getting into a cage match with a BJJ blackbelt who’s much younger and fitter than him.
I don’t see a downside to playing all that up. He has more money than he will ever be able to spend. The only way to hurt him is to humiliate him.
According to him and some other data I found that’s not true. Advertisers got a bit spooked, but they’re now coming back. Apple TV even released a full episode on Twitter in order to advertise a new show.
Tesla’s stock is down and their CFO just quit
Don’t see any relation to the matter, people quit and change jobs all the time.
Neuralink is getting investigated by the feds Good.
BJJ blackbelt who’s much younger and fitter than him
Yes. Mark Zuckerberg is pretty damn fit, surprisingly. He is a BJJ black belt and has won a bunch of tournaments.
As for Twitter and its advertisers, I have no idea what sort of site that is or what credibility it has, but I’d say a lot less credibility than the BBC. www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641
platformer.news
Active