153
Why I Resist Generative “AI” by Esther Weidauer (estherweidauer.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was surprised to see that this lovely write-up wasn't posted here already. Also see the author's Mastodon post about it: https://wandering.shop/@aesthr/117470082684445346

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

So you don’t understand how the technology you’re defending functions then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    “AI” is certainly environmentally damaging and dangerous, and if it isn’t given new input, it quickly starts generating absolute crap

    You see that as "defending" the technology?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    That specifically is not the part I was referring to, but for the record, if an LLM isn’t given any input, it does nothing.

    Giving it input is how you “prompt” it to generate the absolute crap.

    I was referring to the part where you gave the LLMs credit for solving math equations when there is evidence that they simply stole the solutions from real mathematicians and attempted to pass it off as work the LLM had done itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    All maths is based on previous work. The QRH proof combined known maths in a way that nobody had thought of before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    I’m not familiar with the equation, but if you’ve got something you think is worth reading I’d take a look at it

    If it doesn’t have an actual human mathematician who has checked its work and verified it, then I don’t care

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Do you disagree that the examples given are new knowledge? I'm sure OP is aware AI is "just a token generator" or whatever; that doesn't really matter here when there is proof of it at least producing data in the convex hull of its training data, and in the case of alphago, with no training data at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    They literally stole the answers to those math problems from human mathematicians who hadn’t published their work yet, but had spoken to a chat bot about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    All 300 of them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Probably, but I haven’t researched all of them.

    The first one they claimed has been verified to be 100% stolen

    I’m assuming they released the remaining 300 in one large batch so it would be more difficult to check. Like a Gish Gallup.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I think the scenario in which they steal a solution and then release 300 more stolen solutions to cover it up is highly unlikely. Gish galloping doesn't work when the news cycle has weeks to cover what you've published, if literally everything was stolen, we would've heard something by now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    You don’t think they’d be bragging about how it got all of them right by now if that were the case?

    If they had 301 new solutions, why would they release the stolen one first? I suppose it could be because it’s the only one they were confident was correct, but I think these people are likely hubristic and psychotic enough to believe that their plausibility engine actually solve all of the unsolved math questions (rather than providing plausible looking answers, as it’s explicitly designed to do, which then need to be disproven by actual thinking human mathematicians).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent