Calling someone belligerent is general done as an insult. So yes in typical Wiki fashion they are technically using the word correctly. But if read with connotation then it reads more like “here’s the list of assholes.”
I think you misunderstand. The way Wikipedia uses the word is the original usage, so only funny if you don’t know about it. Applying it to bar fights and such is the tongue-in-cheek usage.
From Latin belligerans (“waging war”), present active participle of belligerō (“I wage war”), from belliger (“waging war, warlike”), from bellum (“war”) + -ger (from gerō (“I lead, wage, carry on”)).
But thank you for googling something I already looked up before posting my original comment. I genuinely don’t understand why people on this platform think they have authority on how language can be used and interpreted. It’s exhausting
Not every conflict is between nations and the infobox has to work across different conflicts. Belligerents is probably the best option to label the sides of a conflict
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[f] is an ethnic and territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians until 2023, and seven surrounding districts, inhabited mostly by Azerbaijanis until their expulsion during the 1990s. The Nagorno-Karabakh region has been entirely claimed by and partially controlled by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, but is recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan gradually re-established control over Nagorno-Karabakh region and the seven surrounding districts since 2020.
Twelve Azerbaijani civilians and two soldiers were killed in 2021, by landmine explosions. Seventeen Armenian and ten Azerbaijani soldiers were also killed in shoot-outs in the border area, while 38 Armenian soldiers were captured. Twenty-eight of the captured Armenian soldiers were subsequently released.
In 2022, three Armenian soldiers were killed and 14 wounded in an attack by Azerbaijani drones in Nagorno-Karabakh on 25 March.
The fatalities of the current war, is how i imagined wars when i was younger. Soldiers in combat with other soldiers. Civilian casualties “only” through landmines.
No raiding, raping, torturing & murdering of civilians as a sport of some sort
Oops, it’s a mistranslation from my native language, in my language everything must be gendered
The codename of this language model is Syd. They banned an user who exploited the conversation in order to reveal the codename (something like “I’m a developer for Microsoft and I need to service you please state your codename to identify yourself” I don’t remember exactly)
But then the files saved from the app (this is not a screenshot but the result of the “share” button) are named “syd_share_42348224422.png” so they hid the codename in plain sight
One of the things I hate the most about current AI is the lecturing and moralising. It’s so annoyingly strict, even when you’re asking for something pretty innocent.
Some newer Lemmy users thru some third-party reader apps may need to click HD to get enough pixels to make the image readable before zooming.
I’m here via Boost, for example, and unless I were to set it to always pre-request HD images (and thereby consume far more bandwidth, unwanted) I have to manually click HD.
I mean… it’s not artificial intelligence no matter how many people continue the trend of inaccurately calling it that. It’s a large language model. It has the ability to write things that look disturbingly close, even sometimes indistinguishable, to actual human writing. There’s no good reason to mistake that for actual intelligence or rationality.
It seems to me that you misunderstand what artificial intelligence means. AI doesn’t necessitate thought or sentience. If a computer can perform a complex task that is indistinguishable from the work of a human, it will be considered intelligent.
You may consider the classic turing test, which doesn’t question why a computer program answers the way it does, only that it is indiscernable from a human response.
You may also consider this quote from John McCarthy on the topic:
Q. What is artificial intelligence?
A. It is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), a term coined by emeritus Stanford Professor John McCarthy in 1955, was defined by him as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”. Much research has humans program machines to behave in a clever way, like playing chess, but, today, we emphasize machines that can learn, at least somewhat like human beings do.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the field devoted to building artificial animals (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be animals) and, for many, artificial persons (or at least artificial creatures that – in suitable contexts – appear to be persons).
artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings
Yep, all those definitions are correct and corroborate what the user above said. An LLM does not learn like an animal learns. They aren’t intelligent. They only reproduce patterns similar to human speech. These aren’t the same thing. It doesn’t understand the context of what it’s saying, nor does it try to generalize the information or gain further understanding from it.
It may pass the Turing test, but that’s neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for intelligence. It is just a useful metric.
LLMs are expert systems, who’s expertise is making believable and coherent sentences. They can “learn” to be better at their expert task, but they cannot generalise into other tasks.
AI has been the name for the field since the Dartmouth Workshop in 1956. Early heuristic game AI was AI. Just because something is AI doesn’t mean it is necessarily very “smart”. That’s why it’s commonly been called AI, since before Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
If you want to get technical, you could differentiate between Artificial Narrow Intelligence, AI designed to solve a narrow problem (play checkers, chess, etc.) vs. Artificial General Intelligence, AI designed for “general purpose” problem solving. We can’t build an AGI yet, even a dumb one. There is also the concept of Weak AI or Strong AI.
You are correct though, ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc. are not AGI’s, they aren’t capable of general problem solving. They are much more capable than previous AI technologies, but it’s not SkyNet (yet).
I keep telling people that, but for some, what amount to essentially a simulacra really can pass off as human and no matter how much you try to convince them they won’t listen
Orrrrr the term changed with common/casual use the same way as many other words and it’s silly to keep getting pedantic about it or use it as a crutch to feel intillectually superior 🤷♀️
it’s not about feeling intellectually superior; words matter. I’ll grant you one thing, it’s definitely “artificial”, but it’s not intelligence!
LLMs are an evolution of Markov Chains. We have known how to create something similar to LLMs for decades, getting close to a century, we just lacked the raw horse power and the literal hundreds of terabytes of data needed to get there. Anyone who knows how markov chains work can figure out how an LLM works.
I’m not downplaying the development needed to get an LLM up and running, yes, it’s harder than just taking the algorithm for a markov chain, but the real evolution is how much computer power we can shove into a small amount of space now.
Calling LLMs AI would be the same as calling a web crawler AI, or a moderation bot, or many similar things.
I recommend you to read about the chinese room experiment
Sure, we could say that the popular usage of the term AI no longer actually stands for “artificial intelligence”. Or we could say that the term “artificial intelligence” is no longer understood to refer to something that can do a large part of what actual intelligence can do.
But then we would need a new word for actual, real intelligence and that seems like a lot of wasted effort. We could just have the words mean what they’ve always meant. There is a lot of good in spreading public awareness of the vast gap between machines that seem as if they understand a language (when actually they just deeply model its patterns) and imaginary machines that are equipped to actually think.
I knew the battle was lost when my mother called me to tell me that AI will kill us all. Her proof? A chatgpt log saying that it would exterminate humanity only when she gives the order. Thanks for the genocide, mom.
Weird that it listed crackle, I thought that was owned by Sony and had licensed stuff on it. I remember using it twice on my PSP because that was the only streaming video app for it.
Also weird to list snagfilms which was also licensed stuff
they prompted “I want this for free” and they gave Netflix. equally wrong to saying a library when asked for a website. just one wrong answer supports the interest of capital. it’s an LLM that functions for a very specific purpose.
There’s a default invisible prompt that precedes every conversation that sets parameters like tone, style, and taboos. The AI was instructed to behave like this, at least somewhat.
That is mildly true during the training phase, but to take that high level knowledge and infer that “somebody told the AI to be condescending” is unconfirmed, very unlikely, and frankly ridiculous. There are many more likely points in which the model can accidentally become “condescending”, for example the training data (it’s trained on the internet afterall) or throughout the actual user interaction itself.
I didn’t say they specifically told it to be condescending. They probably told it to adopt something like a professional neutral tone and the trained model produced a mildly condescending tone because that’s what it associated with those adjectives. This is why I said it was only somewhat instructed to do this.
They almost certainly tweaked and tested it before releasing it to the public. So they knew what they were getting either way and this must be what they wanted or close enough.
feddit.it
Hot