I don’t think the AI everyone is so buzzed about today is really a true AI. As someone summed it up: it’s more like a great autocomplete feature but it’s not great at understanding things.
It will be great to replace Siri and the Google assistant but not at giving people professional advice by a long shot.
Not saying an LLM should substitute a professional psychological consultant, but that someone is clearly wrong and doesn’t understand current AI. Just FYI
It’s an oversimplified statement from someone (sorry I don’t have the source) and I’m not exactly an AI expert but my understanding is the current commercial AI products are nowhere near the “think and judge like a human” definition. They can scrape the internet for information and use it to react to prompts and can do a fantastic job to imitate humans, but the technology is simply not there.
The technology for human intelligence? Any technology would be always very different from human intelligence. What you probably are referring to is AGI, that is defined as artificial general intelligence, which is an “intelligent” agent that doesn’t excel in anything, but is able to handle a huge variety of scenarios and tasks, such as humans.
LLM are specialized models to generate fluent text, but very different from autocompletes because can work with concepts, semantics and (pretty surprisingly) with rather complex logic.
As oversimplification even humans are fancy autocomplete. They are just different, as LLMs are different.
It’s a good stick. Not as good as the one I saw on the Internet recently that had a nearly perfect guard and hilt like a sword, but still pretty awesome.
For the people that want to ban sticks here: please don’t take away my joy!
Personally, i just need a game that lets me do something pretty. Satisfactory was mentioned, or City Skylines. Or something that is highly nostalgic and familiar, like Skyrim, Halo or Minecraft. I don’t intrinsically need to think in these cases, which is my goal. I’m a programmer, so anything that lets me shut my brain off and just exist is great. Sometimes BloonsTD is also a great game for this, but it’s situational.
Counter intuitively, most “casual” games like Stardew don’t really fit this vibe for me because of the daily time limit. I need to pick and choose what tasks to do in a day, and I always fall into a min-max schedule, which requires effort. Much as I love them, I also avoid story driven games like Baldur’s Gate when I need to unwind, because I really need to pay attention to progress, and there kinda isn’t any mindless grinding. Multiplayer games with randos is also strictly out. No League, COD, Battlefield, Fortnite etc… Just in general. Don’t like 'em, never did, hate that they are so prolific. They’re just stressful.
In addition to what the other commenter said: from the description of OP, the teleportation is basically “magic”, ergo free potential energy (by moving objects from one place to another).
Create a large magnet in a generator that’s very tall, free transport the magnet up to the top, let it fall slowly creating electricity. It’s basically how hydro works: the sun “transports” water, in the form of clouds, to a higher point, gravity pulls it down, we use that to make energy.
There would be no limits on how many times or where you could teleport. The items you hold while teleporting would be teleported too.
Sure, if you choose to change the parameters from what OP said, it might change the outcome.
That said, the other guy already answered you. It would become less efficient if you only had your body weight, but it still a solve of unlimited (though small volume) energy.
During a natural disaster, you could jump back and forth carrying aid in, and the wounded people out. In any time sensitive crisis, you could get people out of harms way. This bit is more complicated, but you could potentially help out during floods and fires, depending on how far the ‘teleport other stuff with you’ extends to.
A reasonable limit might be ‘Only what you could physically carry yourself’, in which case you’d need to be a lot more strategic. In that case, you could work on personal strength and be a one-human-rescue-team. When there isn’t a disaster, you could probably shuttle light weight (but important) stuff for a fee, then use that money to fund your own charity to do good
As for this prompt, you could probably just teleport away when someone might see you, or teleport to spots that people can’t see. So you could do most things that invisibility would allow
Teleportation is the queen of all powers. Invisibility can be basically mimicked with quick teleportation work if needed.
Although my legs would probably atrophy from lack of use, lol. Why walk to the kitchen when I could blink there and get a sandwich and blink back in no time at all?
Interesting view point. I would have to consider whether time still passes for the user of the power? If you freeze time for everyone else, do you still age? And if so, I would still take teleportation over that as travel would be instant vs “appearing” instant to outside perspectives.
I work in disaster planning - so if you want a really good disaster to happen then give me a call.
To be more serious:
I write disaster response plans mostly for the medical field, e.g. hospitals, nursing homes. That starts with ordinary fires and flooding, but also includes things like “IT outtakes”(which kill far more people than fire each year), “supply line collaps”, etc.
We also train staff, mostly management, and conduct full scale exercises. Additionally I write medical intelligence and evacuation reports. These are basically “plans” for aid workers, expats. that go to risky places: “Oh, I broke my leg in bumfuck nowhere South Sudan! What now? Is there a hospital? Which one do I go to? Which one has actual doctors? Is there a chance that a medical evacuation plane can reach me?”
Originally I am a critical care paramedic and I am currently studying towards (another) master degree in healthcare management. Before I founded my current company I worked as a consultant for various healthcare related firms, before that as an ambulance service director.
But mass casualty situations always were “my thing” and the multi-stakeholder approach I take during planning talking to basically all roles in a hospital, from the higher ups to the guy in charge of waste disposal, is something I enjoy immensely.
I bet Covid got you a lot of fun data to play with re: “supply line collapse”.
I’ve always been interested in work like this–I took a class that covered lean manufacturing and kept thinking about how “just in time” inventory seemed like it’d be awful for a hospital, as the hospital would be MOST needed if supply lines collapsed, and JIT stuff seemed a dumb move. But I was only spitballing on the surface as an outsider.
And mass casualty events are generally centred around population centres. If a train hits that bus in bumfuck, it’s six hours before triage and transport
Yeah, thankfully in central Europe our “bumfuck nowhere” still means that some infrastructure is reachable within 120min usually - and as long as the weather permits we throw dozens of helicopters at it.
Personally I am far more afraid of other scenarios therefore.
Here’s what interests me: obviously on a single instance you need to scale the infrastructure as more users join. But how much do you need to scale to account for the usage of federated instances?
I ask that because the answer in this thread is broadly “it’s sustainable because each instance is low cost, and you can always add more instances” but that doesn’t work if, after the number of instances grows 100x, all existing instances face an increase in costs even if they didn’t gain many more users, because they’re receiving more messages from federated instances, and need to download and store stuff from those other instances for their local users.
That’s a very interesting question and I’m not sure of the answer.
Obviously on some level, the cost of the infrastructure scales with the number of people using it. But so does the ability to crowdfund, if there are 100x more instances then theoretically there would be 100x more potential donors to meet the cost.
One clear way to influence the scaling in our favor would be to utilize instances with clear themes and purposes. If everybody on a particular instance is interested in the same content, that reduces the wasted computational resources compared to an instance where all of the users are interested in different topics, and thus subscribed to a much wider variety of communities.
My intuition is that as long as the platform only hosts text and images, the costs should be manageable, especially with inevitable improvements to computational efficiency that are likely to come as Lemmy matures. For instance, I believe there is some kind of patch that reduces storage utilization that should be shipping with the next version (0.19).
My line of thinking is really wondering about what optimisations are necessary to allow Lemmy to scale in this way. Large social media sites have very interesting designs to deal with the huge amount of data flowing through them, caching as much as possible close to where it will be needed. I don’t know about Lemmy’s design though and I don’t really have a good idea of how that would impact optimisations.
To take an example I remember from reddit (actually I had to re-read about it because I didn’t really remember it…) reddit caches ordered lists of things, for example, the list of posts on the homepage. The problem is that the ordering has to be reevaluated all the time because it can change whenever someone votes. (Let’s assume we’re looking at a listing which incorporates voting). To make that work efficiently the reddit programmers made vote processing actually update not just the backing store and invalidate the cache, but modify the “cache” directly, which is now more like a denormalised view of the backing data. The way this was done meant that later, when the rate of votes increased, there were again problems because all this processing was contending on these denormalised views. I’m thinking this is probably going to be complicated by the federated aspect, because that’s a separate source of updates from those local sources.
I would also say that you can’t expect linear scaling for donations: early adopters are going to be enthusiasts, and correspondingly more enthusiastic with their money!
If they all hang out on communities on the server (more or less), no problemo at all.
But if they all roam around and sign up on thousands of active communities on other servers, my server will be under water.
I love thinking about stuff like this (P=NP, complexity, etc) and I do not see very much about that concerning the lemmyverse which is IMO a shame.
I’m planning setting up a Lemmy build so I can tinker around with it, but you know, time and stuff. I also spent a lot of time just setting up the docker version so maybe it’s quite the job :-)
When I shop on Amazon and see the obvious China companies that sell the same product but have the strangest names. Definitely avoid those products. If I see a.company only ships via fedex, I avoid doing business with that company. Dang, I know I have more just can’t think of them right now with morning brain.
Edit: I avoid many major brands too. I belive them to be selling because of the name alone rather than having a quality product anymore. Dr Scholls is one of those,
yeah, I do still buy from Chinese companies sometimes, but only if they are smart enough to use a name that doesn’t sound like someone just used a random password generator and said “good enough”… or … whatever the Cantonese equivalent of “good enough” is, I suppose.
NPR stays pretty lean on the editorials and opinions. I’m not big on the panel discussion from the 24/7 news companies like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Not that they don’t have a bias, but they more or less let you make up your own mind.
I feel the reason why cnn or fox have panel discusions is because they are made for tv and with for profit motive. While Npr is a nonptofit and made for radio. Radio allows npr to easily and cheaply role the news live practically 24/7 and it just opens them up to do more. While with tv news its more expensive, and they dont really have as much freedom but the auduence is larger. Tv news has to more desperately make the money back they spent.
You’re right, all any of us do, all day, non stop is gripe or insult American culture. Why only the other day, I was in the shop and when I got to the till to pay, all me and the cashier could talk about was America. “That’ll be £44.99 please love and did you see the latest data about gun deaths in America?” God, we’re so insecure.
You don’t hear about American politicians farting because we decided you needed to, you hear about it because France Info, BBC, Sky News, etc. decided you did, or because you’re on English speaking parts of the internet and the USA represents the largest English speaking population in the world by far.
I feel that way about guns and I’m American. It isn’t a hobby, it isn’t a passion, it’s a fetish. They never want to admit why they’re so adamant on having access to any amount of guns they want isn’t for any practical purpose outside they think they’re cool and they feel powerful owning them. There’s also a subset of gun owners here who have guns for “home defense” but they fantasize about someone breaking into their house so they can shoot them. It’s god damn sick, I hate gun ownership culture here. The last reason people love to trot out is the 2nd amendment will help protect the people against a corrupt government, again playing to the sense that gun nuts are some how on part training and mentality wise to a professional military. If the US government ever tried suppressing the population using the military, no amount of Big Gun-Nut Energy and a closet full of guns will stop the real soldiers.
The only way we’ll ever curb mass shootings is to pass laws restricting gun ownership to the types of guns with low capacities like break action shotguns or low capacity bolt action rifles. Essentially just down to hunting firearms. But that will never happen here, it’s typically right leaning folks who love their guns an unhealthy amount, and right leaning politicians are swing further and further into crazy shit to appease their extreme voting base.
So instead of any good sense gun laws, we get laws being repealed to make gun ownership easier and easier, open carry, conceal carry etc etc. To even hint at laws to bring down the the amount of mass shootings, people screech like howler monkeys. They love the “slippery slope” argument, where any law to restrict any type of gun will lead to the government coming and forcefully taking their guns. They are crazy people.
American - in my life i think I’ve heard two people talk about gun collections. One is an idiot. The other one just mentioned it because she was telling me a story about moving her father-in-law’s things and getting stopped at a federal checkpoint with guns in her car.
(And here I go, talking about the stuff I don’t want to listen to other people harp on about! Haha.)
It’s mostly because I used to handle regulatory documentation for a food company, and as a part of that I read a LOT of mommy blogs/health blogs/etc. and discovered people are shockingly uneducated about the actual science of nutrition–but more than happy to talk about their ignorant misinformation at length, and gather followings online for it. People are also uneducated about the history of nutrition and food regulatory agencies and say a lot of stupid things there too.
You kinda see the same sort of problems arising that caused the anti-vaxx mindset. Anti-vaxxers come about because vaccines were so effective at preventing once-prevalent childhood diseases that people grow up without actually knowing people who got sick from those things, and they start tilting at windmills instead due to a lack of personal experience with the deadliness of certain diseases. (They attack the vaccine helping them, instead of having the experience to be scared of the disease.)
Likewise with food, food safety with pasteurization and such has been SO effective that you have things like raw-milk advocates crawling out of the woodwork because they’ve never actually heard about a toddler’s kidneys being damaged for life from salmonella. Apparently to them, their “freedom” to eke out…oh, some tiny unconfirmed extra “nutrition” from unpasteurized raw milk…somehow outweighs the very real risk of actual human beings becoming ill and dying. But historically back in the day tainted milk was a very real danger, killing kids and elderly and making others sick, it was a public health menace. The discovery of pasteurization was ground-breaking because it fixed that public health issue. But people who don’t know their history and haven’t seen with their own two eyes someone getting really sick from raw unpasteurized milk get fixated on some hypothetical damage being done to them or their freedoms if they can’t get or drink their raw, unpasteurized milk due to laws or regulations. They’re completely willing to let real people die on their minor molehill. Mostly because, as with anti-vaxxers, they haven’t seen what life is like when people are getting sick left and right from this stuff.
I also come from a background of trauma and abuse, and I’m extremely aware of how quickly control of food by someone antagonistic towards you can physically make you ill or sick very, very quickly. A lot of people have hot takes they think only affect them but which can fuck up other people if they were applied more broadly. There’s this disconnect that food is actually needed for people to live…probably because the people flapping their gums have never missed a meal.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.