R00bot

Come on man, you know they didn't mean it literally 💀

there he is. Vinny.

Apologies, I misread your comment as saying you had to use the terminal to use Linux (I was drunk ngl). I still believe Linux is easier to use than Windows with the caveat that the easiest system to use will always be the one you have the most experience with. I switched from MacOS/Windows to Fedora on my personal machine a few months ago and it's been smooth sailing for me, though I have always used Linux at least somewhat (I work in cyber security), so that has probably helped.

Dismissing Linux as a tool for a different job (ie not personal/business computing) is an odd position to take for someone with your experience.

lol tell me you've never used linux without telling me you've never used linux

The fact that Facebook are allowing spam pages into this is wild.

I run a Facebook page (periodically). Frequently post things which get 3k+ likes. Facebook has paid me $0.

Strange to equate the other senses to performance in intellectual tasks but sure. Do you think feeding data from smells, touch, taste, etc. into an AI along with the video will suddenly make it intelligent? No, it will just make it more likely to guess what something smells like. I think it's very clear that our current approach to AI is missing something much more fundamental to thought than that, it's not just a dataset problem.

Oh yeah we're 100% agreed on that. I'm thinking of the AI evangelicals who will argue tooth and nail that LLMs have "emergent properties" of intelligence, and that it's simply an issue of training data/compute power before we'll get some digital god being. Unfortunately these people exist, and they're depressingly common. They've definitely reduced in numbers since AI hype has died down though.

I feel like the amount of training data required for these AIs serves as a pretty compelling argument as to why AI is clearly nowhere near human intelligence. It shouldn't take thousands of human lifetimes of data to train an AI if it's truly near human-level intelligence. In fact, I think it's an argument for them not being intelligent whatsoever. With that much training data, everything that could be asked of them should be in the training data. And yet they still fail at any task not in their data.

Put simply; a human needs less than 1 lifetime of training data to be more intelligent than AI. If it hasn't already solved it, I don't think throwing more training data/compute at the problem will solve this.

Same! Got to log off early 😎