![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/df165abd-ff7c-452c-9789-9d02633e8da0.png)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
Yeah to me too. I’m not clicking on that “Download client” link for sure.
Yeah to me too. I’m not clicking on that “Download client” link for sure.
As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…
The summary I just read sounds great, thanks for the tip!
Thank you for the explanation! – it puts that sentence into perspective. I think he put it in a somewhat unfortunate and easily misunderstood way.
“Bayesian analysis”? What the heck has this got to do with Bayesian analysis? Does this guy have an intelligence, artificial or otherwise?
It’s reached 333 protesters! that’s 1/3 of the way to 1000, it’d be cool if it kept on increasing :)
Thanks for the recommendations!
Nothing dense in this, I don’t quite know what to write either. In my opinion what you wrote in your comment is just perfect, you’re a citizen simply expressing an honest concern, without lying – not all people are tech-savvy. It also makes it clear that it’s a letter from a real person.
But that’s only my point of view, and maybe I haven’t thought enough steps ahead. Let’s see what other people suggest and why.
You brought back memories and I got interested. Interesting reading about privacy:
https://www.irchelp.org/security/privacy.html
How much of it is true?
From this github comment:
If you oppose this, don’t just comment and complain, contact your antitrust authority today:
This is actually already implemented, see here.
Travelors = travellers + sailors. I like that!
Here?: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/about/
Looks like a good project, I didn’t know about its existence.
Yes, the purpose isn’t sabotaging.
Title:
ChatGPT broke the Turing test
Content:
Other researchers agree that GPT-4 and other LLMs would probably now pass the popular conception of the Turing test. […]
researchers […] reported that more than 1.5 million people had played their online game based on the Turing test. Players were assigned to chat for two minutes, either to another player or to an LLM-powered bot that the researchers had prompted to behave like a person. The players correctly identified bots just 60% of the time
Complete contradiction. Trash Nature, it’s become only an extremely expensive gossip science magazine.
PS: The Turing test involves comparing a bot with a human (not knowing which is which). So if more and more bots pass the test, this can be the result either of an increase in the bots’ Artificial Intelligence, or of an increase in humans’ Natural Stupidity.
There’s an ongoing protest against this on GitHub, symbolically modifying the code that would implement this in Chromium. See this lemmy post by the person who had this idea, and this GitHub commit. Feel free to “Review changes” –> “Approve”. Around 300 people have joined so far.
Yeah that’s bullsh*t by the author of the article.
Thank you for the great help, I hope it’ll be useful to others too :)
Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?