adespoton

joined 3 years ago
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 month ago

They can’t have it both ways:

it takes a picture of a car. Most people go, “this makes a lot of sense. I want my kids to be safe.”

If it’s just taking pictures of cars, it’s doing nothing to keep kids safe. I take pictures of cars. Does that somehow make kids safe?

However, if the argument is: “the system knows where all cars in the area are and have been, and so can keep kids safe…” well, that STILL doesn’t keep kids safe, just allows some understanding of what caused the problem after the fact. But it also lets those with access track where every vehicle is. And then tie in the OTHER cameras the system has access to, and you’re no longer tracking cars, you’re tracking people (and dogs, apparently).

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Instead, they abandoned hardware.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 125 points 1 month ago

Thing is, governments aren’t making age a condition; they’re making identity verification a condition. Age is just the excuse.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

Here’s the text my phone extracted from that image:

FUCK THE POUXCE

What does this say?

It says "THIN BLUE LINE."

The word BLUE is split between the second and third lines:

THIN

BLU

ELINE

•••

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My iPhone reads text from images. I wonder how it’d do with this?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Now I’m intrigued because another article called it a light-up keyboard, and still another called it a ChatGPT Remote.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Not relevant to the article which isn’t about LLMs… but it IS relevant to “this isn’t about LLMs, don’t downvote!” Which implicitly implies LLM discussion is intrinsically worth downvoting.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Also, LLMs doesn’t equal generalist trained chatbots.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Personally I’ve found the way to use it is to get it to do the work of processing documents I could never be bothered to process myself, and to transform large volumes of information into an indexed and cross referenced dynamic index. It does both of these things well, because that’s what language models are good at.

The end result is that I am more informed. The downside is that I spend less time going off into the weeds, which does mean picking up less esoteric information.

It’s also more mentally exhausting to have to be constantly second guessing your sources of information.

But I’ve found well prompted LLMs to be a force multiplier if used in the background to do the things you previously just didn’t bother doing at all.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

It’s called selection bias.

These days we are flooded with information. We’re constantly having to pay attention to multiple streams of information at once.

But our brains aren’t developed to work at this volume; they tend to latch on to and enhance around one thing an hour.

Think about how many different topics you encounter in an hour these days.

This means that there’s almost guaranteed to be coincidences happening on a regular basis due to the sheer volume of things being observed.

If you’re focused on a specific topic and the other information isn’t related, you probably won’t even notice. But if you’re focused on how often coincidences are happening, you’ll notice every single one and forget the rest. Over time it will seem like you’re the involuntary subject of first person syndrome.

Other places this crops up: you’re considering having a baby and suddenly babies are everywhere. Or you’re thinking of traveling somewhere and then suddenly notice you’re getting bombarded with travel vacation ads. Or you’re trying to quit smoking and suddenly see cigarette ads and people enjoying a cigarette everywhere.

In all these circumstances, you’re suddenly noticing the stuff that’s always there, but you normally block out because it’s not important.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 87 points 1 month ago (29 children)

Something I’ve been noticing recently is that while the cost per token on specific models hasn’t gone up, the provided interfaces for using those models are starting to chew up significantly larger numbers of tokens for the same tasks that used fewer tokens with older versions of the interface software just a few months ago. Likely the interfaces are applying more expensive guardrail prompts and charging the end user for those tokens — but the end result is that it costs 4x as much to get the same work done.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’d say “That’s Loblaw’s for you” but the other day I was in Costco, and even THEIR packages have shrunk. You still have to buy a pack of 6, but it doesn’t weigh as much.

Oddly though, a 1kg bag of oats is still a 1kg bag of oats… just more expensive.

view more: ‹ prev next ›