hirihit640

joined 2 years ago
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 3 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

I once saw a comment saying that a bacteria that consumes plastic could be apocalyptic if it got out of the lab and spread everywhere

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 19 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

steamed hams you say?

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How do you donate heat? Ventilation pipes?

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I assume you can with LineageOS and GrapheneOS

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

AI is really fast at searching forums though, can usually dig up posts better than I can. Doesn't help that AI slop has filled the internet making manual search harder

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Something I should point out just in case is that 50% success rate is the same as random chance. So when the study says:

AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time.

That really means that humans could not tell the difference between AI and human, since their success rate was almost the same as random chance.

6 language specific tasks. They were programmed and set up specifically to perform whatever specific one task they had to do at the time, that is what computers do.

Sure, and that task was "imitate humans", and these computers seem remarkably good at it. That's what I'm saying. I don't care that these AI work differently than humans. They can imitate humans so well that humans can't tell the difference.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I'm surprised the painting is so old, for some reason the woman's hairstyle looked fairly modern to me

Edit: nevermind I looked at a higher res image. I was confusing parts of her veil as hair bangs

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

You overestimate most people. Here's a study from 2025

https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087

Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fair enough. When I say that AI might be sentient, I include systems like "LLM + agent harness", treating the whole system as AI.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

That sounds like a lot of work to just read some docs. RAG doesn't require any training at all. I assume there are other approaches as well that would be faster than LoRA

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

Some humans think humans are so special. "Sentient" and "conscious".

Now I don't claim that computers are special, I think they are just as non-special as humans.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago (12 children)

Sounds like you haven't tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference

 

The information is spread out across various articles, but from what I gather, a supply chain attack compromised the VS Code extension nx-console, which was then used to compromise Github. This all happened within two days.

Info on the Github attack:

Info about the nx-console attack:

view more: next ›