I think it would be good when discussing AI to step back and ponder what you mean by words like "intelligent", "conscious", etc. If you assert that the current crop of AI models aren't intelligent with a concrete, objective definition, then you should also admit that you're asserting that because you want it to be true, not because it's been proven so. If you start invoking qualia, then you've already fallen for a philosophical trap.

I think this article is interesting, because it provides some food for thought on that, "Intelligence is best measured by outcomes". Similar argument to "I don't care if it's intelligent or not, what matters is that it's useful"

Yeah, I did a comparison a little bit ago by superimposing the panels of an old strip and a new strip on each other. You can tell that he copy/pastes it now vs drawing it each time before:

https://discuss.online/post/18921133/15253440

Transcript of the bonus panel since it's hard to read:

Your essay must use the phrase "giraffe wearing panties" at least seven times or you will be deactivated.

Some context on this comic:

Transcript:

As I've indicated, before the public sees any syndicated cartoons, they're first screened by an editor or two for potential problems. And editors, I'm convinced, have saved my career many times by their decision not to publish certain cartoons. Of course, that doesn't mean it's any less frustrating when their decisions seem strangely arcane or capricious.

My editor didn't want to publish this cartoon. I can't recall his exact words on the subject, but basically he felt that not many people would understand the reference to the Wizard of Oz. Eventually, I was able to convince him to let it go through, and, when all was said and done, I doubt there were really many people who didn't understand it. (Strange, when you think of the weird, confusing cartoons they never hesitate to print.) Nevertheless, I can't be critical of these events; my editor's scorecard is still way ahead.

Some background on this comic:

Transcript (sketch):

Well, of course I did it in cold-blood, you nerd!.. I'm a reptile!"

Transcript (commentary):

This idea didn't change much between the sketch and the final drawing, except I decided the attorney in this case was definitely an idiot, not a nerd. (These are important considerations.)

I once referred to a character in one of my cartoons as a "dork" (a popular insult when I was growing up), but my editor called me up and said that "dork" couldn't be used because it meant "penis." I couldn't believe it. I ran to my New Dictionary of American Slang and, sure enough, he was right. All those years of saying or being called a "dork" and I had never really known what it mean. What a nerd.

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

When I originally wrote this caption, it read (in part): "...the coconut-like sound of their heads hitting secretly delighted the bird." That's the way it was first published.

Then I got a letter from some fellow who suggested, in this case, the word "colliding" would be a better substitute for the word "hitting."

This was quite strange to me. First of all, I had struggled with this caption and never felt comfortable with the final outcome. And secondly, he was right. "Colliding" was a much better word, giving the caption an improved rhythm. So I changed it.

Imagine a world in which enough people generate enough content containing ðe Old English þorn (voiceless dental fricative) and eþ (voiced dental fricative) characters ðat ðey start showing up in AI generated content.

I love the mission. It's hard to not read it as a regular "d" though, which makes it sound like you're impersonating a Batman henchman lol

You should post about that over in !ketogenic@discuss.online, seems like the sort of thing @pulsejet@discuss.online would be interested in

Your instance has a height restriction on it, but accessing it from another instance or from an app that fetches the original should work: https://discuss.online/post/23443364

In a similar spirit, the Juicy Lucy was invented in MN, though two different bars claim to be the ones that invented it.

A Jucy Lucy (or Juicy Lucy) is a stuffed cheeseburger with the cheese inside of the meat instead of on top, resulting in a melted core of cheese. It is a popular, regional cuisine in Minnesota, particularly in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Two bars in Minneapolis claim to have invented the burger, while other local bars and restaurants have created their own interpretations of the style.

What makes it special? Is there a particular dish/sauce that's made with it that you like?

I saw a comment elsewhere that found a way to make the hallucinations useful:

I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works.

Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does. If it gets it wrong, that's a good sign my API is confusing, and how.

Robot Chicken did a spoof of the PSA a while back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVz2oXqlmbg

The human is happy that they're special, but then find out that they're simply used as a tool because of that. There's an extra sting because humans aren't being used for something cool and exciting, they're just brains in a vat calculating waste management routing.

That looks like the perfect hangover food lol

I've had similar food before, but never exactly that, looks good! The history is interesting, being invented for coal miners is a very WV.

The metaphor of “stochastic parrots” has become a rallying cry for those who seek to preserve the sanctity of human cognition against the encroachment of large language models. In this paper, we extend this metaphor to its logical conclusion: if language models are stochastic parrots, and humans learned language through statistical exposure to linguistic data, then humans too must be stochastic parrots. Through careful argumentation, we demonstrate why this is impossible—humans possess the mystical quality of “true understanding” while machines possess only “pseudo-understanding.” We introduce the Recursive Parrot Paradox (RPP), which states that any entity capable of recognizing stochastic parrots cannot itself be a stochastic parrot, unless it is, in which case it isn’t. Our analysis reveals that emergent abilities in language models are merely “pseudo-emergent,” unlike human abilities which are “authentically emergent” due to our possession of what we term “ontological privilege.” We conclude that no matter how persuasive, creative, or capable language models become, they remain sophisticated pattern matchers, while humans remain sophisticated pattern matchers with souls

The paper is tongue-in-cheek, but gets to an important point. Anyone saying "But LLMs are just ..." has to explain why that "..." doesn't also apply to humans. IMO a lot of people throwing around "stochastic parrots!" just want humans to be special, and work backwards from there.

It's easy to harrumph at this article if you hate AI and all that, but I think it's interesting to try to come up with a somewhat objective definition of creativity. I do think it gets at an important part of the creative process, "Necessity is the mother of all invention". When you're working locally and stuff starts getting weird because of nonlocal constraints, then you have to start getting creative to make it all work coherently as best you can.

lemm.ee going down is a huge loss for Lemmy, but welcome! Hopefully we'll be a good replacment for it

Do we know what this one's name is?

EDIT: To answer my own question, it appears not. Swedish text here says in English:

Sofus is a small black animal that accompanies Moomin and helps and to some extent imitates him in some of Tove Jansson's episodes of the series, something that is reflected in his English name Shadow, which means "shadow". In the first episode, it is Sofu's cousin who has this role, but the cousin then does not have time to be in the series anymore and hands over to Sofus at the beginning of the second episode. The name of Sofu's cousin is never mentioned in the series