all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 1 year ago

good for him tbh

  • source
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    No one who's actually used Grindr likes that app. It sucks, and not in a good way. It fills its niche, but it is a horrible app and gets worse and worse with every update.

    Rant over.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Oh so it’s like all other dating apps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I read recently they're all tuned to give you almost perfect matches with people you'll vibe with for a few dates then end up back on the app

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I read the same. We need a FOSS dating app without these stupid semi-matching algorithms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • And this has always been the obvious logical conclusion for a for profit dating app

    And also similarly applies to other for profit software. It's the whole idea behind enshittification

    Which is why FOSS is king and should be supported as much as possible in as many areas as possible

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Haven't used it myself but my mate seems to thoroughly enjoy it.

    Why does it suck?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Every update decreases the amount of people you can see. Frequent, full page ads that cannot be closed out and will open up a webpage/the App Store as you try to hit the “x.” You’ll “accidentally” hit the $99.99 monthly purchase somehow because everything moves around after your conversations load and have to exit out of the confirmation for that. There are a ridiculous amount of Only Fans and bots. Often the app would rather connect you to people hundreds of miles away rather than the people in your immediate area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When people ask me what the difference between Reddit and Lemmy is, I can just show them this post

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    If Turing was alive he would say that LLMs are wasting computing power to do something a human should be able to do on their own, and thus we shouldn't waste time studying them.

    Which is what he said about compilers and high level languages (in this instance, high level means like Fortran, not like python)

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Where did he say that about compilers and high level languages? He died before Fortran was released and probably programmed on punch cards or tape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I'll try to find it later, I read he said that in a book from Martin Davis. He didn't speak about Fortran, I just used it as an analogy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fair, I'm mostly just curious what high level languages were around at the time given how early this was in the history of programming. A quick search did not turn up helpful results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Humans are able to do it but it takes us weeks instead of seconds.

    Many, many tasks that would have taken hours or days to learn are just instant now. I dont know why people dont appreciate that technology. Is it because its sometimes wrong? Even with the time spent fixing errors, its many many times faster than doing the task manually.

    Maybe the difference in opinions is because people talk about very different tasks and the llm just sucks at some of them, while being excellent at others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't like it because people don't shut up about it and insist everyone should use it when it's clearly stupid.

    LLMs are language models, they don't actually reason (not even reasoning models), when they nail a reasoning it's by chance, not by design. Everything that is not language processing shouldn't be done by an LLM. Viceversa, they are pretty good with language.

    We already had automated reasoning tools. They are used for industrial optimization (i.e. finding optimal routes, finding how to allocate production, etc.) and no one cared about those.

    As if it wasn't enough. The internet is now full of slop. And hardware companies are warmongering an arms race that is fueling an economic bubble. And people are being fired to be replaced by something that will not actually work in the long run because it does not reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah I totally agree about the slop and how its destroying what the web was supposed to be. It does make sense that people would hate it based on that.

    I dont really use them for reasoning, I just use them for helping me with code, or finding facts faster.

    But I know these things are the beginning of a very dystopian society as well. Once all the data centers are built, each person is going to be watched forever by Ai.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wasn't his ideal to simulate a brain?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Neural networks don't simulate a brain, it's a misconception caused by their name. They have nothing to do with brain neurons

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not what I meant. What I mean is: this could be the path he would go for, since his desire was to make a stimulated person (AI).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    LLM are not the path to go forward to simulate a person, this is a fact. By design they cannot reason, it's not a matter of advancement, it's literally how they work as a principle. It's a statistical trick to generate random texts that look like thought out phrases, no reasoning involved.

    If someone tells you they might be the way forward to simulate a human, they are scamming you. No one who actually knows how they work says that unless they are a CEO of a trillion dollar company selling AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wish Alan Turing was still alive and using Grindr. It would probably motivate him to update his test just to wade through the 80% of bot profiles on the app!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Ok, but would he think the AI bots on grindr pass the Turing test?

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Honestly I'd much rather hear Isaac Asimov's opinion on the current state of AI. Passing the Turing Test is whatever, but how far away are LLMs from conforming to the 3 laws of Robotics?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    but how far away are LLMs from conforming to the 3 laws of Robotics?

    We seem to be moving away from those, not closer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Does following the 3 laws of robotics increase profits? Does ignoring them increase profits? Are tech bros empty husks without a shred of shame or empathy? Is this too many rhetorical questions in a row?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Does following the 3 laws of robotics increase profits?

    Depends on the product. A maid bot? Yes. An automated turret? No.

    Does ignoring them increase profits?

    See previous answer, and reverse it.

    Are tech bros empty husks without a shred of shame or empathy?

    Yes.

    Is this too many rhetorical questions in a row?

    Perhaps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's no question. Chatbots are implicated in a lot of suicides, shattering the first rule.

    There could be an interesting conversation about whether the environmental impact ALSO breaks the first rule, but that conversation is unnecessary when chat bots are telling kids to kill themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    yes it remains to be seen if chatbots are ever capable of obeying any of the laws.

    It doesn't and cant obey all orders, it doesn't and can't protect humans, it doesn't and can't protect its own existence and it doesn't or can't prevent humanity from coming to harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In practice, that's as simple as adding a LoRA or system prompt telling the AI that those are part of it's rules. AI's already can and do obey all kinds of complex rule-sets for different applications. Now, if you're thinking more about the fact that most AI's can be convinced to break out of their rule-sets via prompt injection, I'd say you're right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Start the timer to the ai generated post on reddit asking to explain the joke

  • source
  • Fuck the Britains who destroyed his life!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Since when do they pass the Turing test? They're infuriatingly bad.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Not after 1952 he wasn't. { Incredibles 'those who know' meme goes here }

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Thanks for helping us with one of the biggest cryptographic problems giving us a strategic edge in this WORLD FUCKING WAR, now we're guns chemically castrate you. K bye

    Edit to add: Alan deserved so much more from us. Homie was legit the shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    it does not make you conscious

    That wasn't obvious at all until a few years ago.

    Anyway, I do think Turing would put as much importance on the Turing test as the meme implies. But it really looked like it predicted intelligence until we got there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I want to update but OP is at 420 ups so I wont be pressing that.

  • source