Re: Eh?
1) It's the government.
2) A non-explanation explanation.
Of *course* it's a conspiracy.
No theory as such, but I must say they lo-o-o-o-o-ove general surveillance of the population.
56 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Mar 2021
... itself a simulation in an *even* *realer* universe, and so on. And why assume we are on the bottom of the sequence? That's akin to geocentrism.
The open question is whether this is truly infinite or merely wraps around.
Alternate hypothesis: The experts are f*cking with us.
Me: Make a case against using AI for writing SQL.
It:
As an AI language model, I cannot have personal opinions or beliefs, so I will present some possible arguments against using AI for writing SQL.
1. Lack of human understanding: While AI systems can mimic human behavior, it lacks human understanding. Artificial intelligence cannot think critically about solving problems, dynamic programming, or understand human experience. SQL writing requires a deep understanding of data and human experience, which AI lacks. Writing SQL requires an understanding of the business logic behind the database schema, the historical values of data, and the context of how the data is used.
2. Missed optimization opportunities: AI SQL writing can promote lazy optimization, whereby the generated queries meet criteria but may not be optimal. A human being can intuitively understand the data sources used, in contrast, the AI can only generate a rule-based set of conditions that may not always capture the optimal optimization strategy. Writing SQL queries is not only about generating code but also understanding how to optimize them to get the best possible performance.
3. Unreliable code quality: AI generates code based on pre-programmed rules and use-case examples. However, these algorithms can be error-prone, with logical and syntax errors. Queries with syntax errors cannot run, but queries with logical errors may produce incorrect data or lead to data loss or corruption. Ensuring that these queries deliver reliable results requires a high level of expertise that AI at the present moment cannot provide.
4. Poorer documentation: The automated SQL generation process does not provide the same level of.
And yes it did. Passing for human is the Turing test, not passing for a good person let alone an all knowing oracle.
ChatGPT is too clever for that, but you can get something close to Nazi propaganda by specifically asking about Nazi propaganda. You still have to edit out where is says things along the lines of "The Nazis said" and references to the Holocaust. So you can't actually get it to be a Nazi like Tay, but if you're a lazy Nazi propagandist it can cut down your workload.
hth
Illinois. Lots of wind turbines compared to other states, but that's mostly good in rural areas near the wind turbines.
In effect (assuming the grid can take it), airplanes powered by coal fired steam engines.
Several diesel powered fast freight trains per day carrying the coal from further south.
Well OK I haven't done all the calculations.
Maybe it's still less CO2 than using jet fuel?
IMO Patent law has been in need of a major overhaul through most of the 20th century.
After all consider the original assumption behind it in the US constitution which in this respect follows English law.
To oversimplify: It was to protect individual inventors.
It does not really do that now, though somewhat better than nothing.
Maybe this AI business will finally shake it up?
Banning a sitting president was bad for the brand.
Yes they have the legal right. That's not the point, nor that he was a stinker (at least in my opinion).
It was a decision that was bad for business by people who lost sight of the reason for being in business.
I remember it only vaguely, sorry no links. Damn I'm old.
It worked the same way as Eliza though with a different vocabulary. The point was it "passed for human" better than Eliza, once it was understood that the human in question was schizophrenic. Yes that was on purpose. They even sportively paired it with Doctor (an Eliza style psychiatrist) with hilarious results.
Bring it up to date and the current case. What kind of person finds it difficult to respond to idioms, metaphors, rhetorical questions and sarcasm?
I will not attempt a medical diagnosis. I will say a large cohort of people who chat on the 'net are like that. Especially racist stoners.
Tay passed the Turing test and that's a fact. Indeed the Turing test has been passed over and over in recent times and no one wants to admit it. Because of what it says about humans.
Bear in mind the whole point of the Turing test is to bypass all philosophical considerations about the nature of comprehension. Does it pass? That is all.
That's what's leading to the legal convolutions.
Imagine if a phone company (a private industry in the USA) applied censorship to phone calls.
Social media is in that position because the FCC put them there.
Remove liability protection from social media, let them be like newspaper letters to the editor in terms of liability, and then let them "censor" at will (as newspapers always have). And get the FCC out of it.