this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
271 points (93.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6598 readers
392 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While you're right, let's not incorrectly imply that ML (especially Deep Learning) has never come up with new ideas.
Yes, it comes up with new ideas from old information, but some have argued that's what humans do. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, who themselves tood on the shoulders of nature.
As I said:
They're basically fuzzing the goals we give them with random combinations of the information we feed them.
There is undeniably a value in that (we commonly use fuzzing for security and QA already, for example), but let's not kid ourselves that "AI" is somehow actually intelligent.
However, the question we ought to ask ourselves is: does actual intelligence really matter? If pseudo-randomness is good enough for cryptographic applications, is pseudo-intuition (eventually) coupled with proper rationalization (the only part of intelligence computers can systematically do) enough to replace most tasks humans do?
That's not really an accurate take of how machine learning typically works. Neural Networks (allegedly) learn in a way similar to how humans do, taking the data they are fed and building a weighted matrix of resolutions that seems most compatible. A historically interesting trait is that neural networks are often better pattern-discoverers than humans.
But note, the outcome of a neural network is NOT a "random combination of the information we feed them">
I feel like this is a hard question to answer since it is based off controversial takes about ML. I am not a brain-is-a-computer hypothesis adherent, but we're talking about specific learning mechanisms that are absolutely comparable to human learning. Is "the learning humans do" enough to replace "the learning humans do"? I would say obviously yes.
The implementation details of how they represent their information doesn't really matter.
It isn't random, it's selected (or "weighted", if you wanna be more precise, yes)
And don't confuse things. We're talking about intelligence here. Not learning. Learning can be done without intelligence (that's how insects can learn behavior) and intelligence can be done without learning.
My question was uniquely about information generation (since the validation part is fully rational, and can be very efficiently done by a machine).
Are we? Alright. Can you describe a definition test for intelligence that we could agree upon that humans pass and no NN or other ML is capable of passing? I suspect you're confusing things. Not an
intelligence,learningcomparison, but anintelligence,consciousnessconfusion.