Cethin

most models I’ve seen now cite sources you can check when they’re reporting factual stuff

Maybe online models can, but local has no access to the internet so it can’t. However, it’s likely generating a response that is predictable that can cite a source, but it could totally make that up. Hopefully people would double check it to make sure it actually is and says what it’s claiming, but we both know most won’t. Citing a source is just a way to make it look intelligent while it still generates bullshit.

Yeah LLMs might be more likely to give bad info, but people are unreliable too, they’re biased and flawed and often have an agenda, and they are frequently, confidently wrong.

You’re saying this like they’re equal. People put thought into it. LLMs do not. Yes, con men exist. However, not everyone is a con man. You can follow authors who are known to be accurate. You can do the same with LLMs. The problem is consistency. A con man will always be a con man. With an LLM you have no way to know if it’s bullshitting this time or not, so you should always assume it’s bullshit. In which case, what’s the point? However, most people assume it’s always honest, because that’s what the marketing leads you to believe

I run local models. The other day I was writing some code and needed to implement simplex noise, and LLMs are great for writing all the boilerplate stuff. I asked it to do it, and it did alright although I had to modify it to make it actually work because it hallucinated some stuff. I decided to look it up online, and it was practically an exact copy of this, down to identical comments and everything.

It is not too diluted to matter. You just don’t have the knowledge to recognize what it copies.

You can look up the author and figure out if they’re a reliable source of information. Most authors either write bullshit or don’t, at least on a particular subject. LLMs are unreliable. Sometimes they return bullshit and sometimes they don’t. You never know, but it’ll sound just as confident either way. Also, people are lead to believe they’re actually thinking about their response, and they aren’t. They aren’t considering if it’s real or not, only if it is a statistically probable output.

Not remotely the same thing. Books almost always have context on what they are, like having an author listed, and hopefully citations if it’s about real things. You can figure out more about it. LLMs create confident sounding outputs that are just predictions of what an output should look like based on the input. It didn’t reason and doesn’t tell you how it generated its response.

The problem is LLMs are sold to people as Artifical Intelligence, so it sounds like it’s smart. In actuality, it doesn’t think at all. It just generates confident sounding results. It’s literally companies selling con(fidence) men as a product, and people fully trust these con men.

Like the other comments say, LLMs (the thing you’re calling AI) don’t think. They aren’t intelligent. If I steal other people’s work and copy pieces of it and distribute it as if I made it, that’s wrong. That’s all LLMs are doing. They aren’t “being inspired” or anything like that. That requires thought. They are copying data and creating outputs based on weights that tell it how and where to put copied material.

I think the largest issue is people hearing the term “AI” and taking it at face value. There’s no intelligence, only an algorithm. It’s a convoluted algorithm that is hard to tell what going on just by looking at it, but it is an algorithm. There are no thoughts, only weights that are trained on data to generate predictable outputs based on given inputs. If I write an algorithm that steals art and reorganizes into unique pieces, that’s still stealing their art.

For a current example, the stuff going on with Marathon is pretty universally agreed upon to be bad and wrong. However, you’re arguing if it was an LLM that copied the artist’s work into their product it would be fine. That doesn’t seem reasonable, does it?

Although at some point you’ll get collisions, but I don’t think that’s actually an issue. It still equally hard to guess a password from the hash, there will just be some solutions that are much longer than others.

Only if there’s one path, no dead ends. A maze branches, a labyrinth doesn’t and only winds around as one long path.

Some of the stuff has the artist’s logo still on it.

Nope. I don’t really know why they decided to do this, but it does use the existing lore. The Phor are going to be involved, and a bunch of other Marathon stuff is going to be used. It’s almost the exact opposite game mode of what Marathon was though.

OK, criticism is fine, but reskined Helldivers? It’s nothing like Helldivers. It’s an extraction shooter, with a focus on PvP.

I guess Helldivers is a shooter where you extract, but it isn’t an extraction shooter. Extraction shooters are like Escape from Tarkov, Gray Zone, and the upcoming ARC Raiders. They’re about entering a game with items, collecting loot, and leaving. If you die you lose everything you brought. Nothing like Helldivers.

Every game’s style is inspired by something else. For example, Sable has a great style, but it’s largely inspired by Moebius (the artist), and that’s OK, and actually encouraged.

There is nothing in this world that is not inspired by previous experiences.

Wow, what powerful words created by a team of writers describing something make-believe that never happened.

It was written by a team of writers, yes. It did happen though. Maybe not the exact things you see on the screen, but it all happened for real somewhere in our world. Star Wars was originally about Vietnam, and they won against the US (The Empire) in real life. Andor is inspired by revolutions of our past as well.

Just because something is fiction doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Almost all fiction is talking about real things. The aliens in Star Trek aren’t aliens, they’re different races of people (or sometimes nations), for example. Fiction allows us to talk about real issues without people realizing you’re teaching them until it’s too late. If you told people Star Wars was about fighting against the US, it probably wouldn’t be as popular as it was. If you can trick them into absorbing it then they’ll internalize some of the message and carry it with them.

You’re question shows exactly why the west (especially the US) has such an issue doing anything in the modern day. Everyone asks “what can I do” not “what can we do.”

What happens the first time? You’re probably killed, and if not you’re caught and sentenced as if it’s illegal (even though it probably isn’t in most states if they don’t identify and don’t present a warrant). Maybe you can kill them and ghost if you’re incredibly lucky, and disappear somewhere.

What happens the hundredth time people do this? They start getting scared of acting and more people are encouraged to take action. Maybe they start coming down even harder, but that will just drive people to even more action. If that happens then they eventually lose. They have to maintain authority. Authority is not the default state. If they lose it then they’re done.

If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.

Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.

They also have the bar - a legal association…

An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.

…specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.

Sure, I’d advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.

Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason.

Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn’t fallacious always.

'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:

“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”

The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A’

(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)

Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.

If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”

That’s just blatantly incorrect. They’re not required to report on stuff they’re told in confessionals and that’s all. They’re still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?

Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.

So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.

Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.

In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I’m sure this won’t always happen, but it may. If they’re required to report it, they’ll never be told, so can’t act on it.

I don’t like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it’s way into people’s lives that I don’t like.

The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.

It is not the opposite direction. It’s the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn’t only between you and the clergy.

I don’t think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they’re required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there’s no reason it shouldn’t expand to more/all crimes.

Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”

No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It’d only be things said in the confession box that are safe.

I don’t like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people’s lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?

Wow, I didn’t even write much and you lost the thread that quickly. I was agreeing with the premise.

I know you said rhetoric, not actual 2A, but I will continue to say this every time I see it, this is not what 2A is for. It’s clearly for militias defending the state against an enemy army. It’s been mutilated into self defence stuff, but there’s nothing even approaching that there.

However, 9A does protect this right, since it has long been held by the people. Regardless, the reasoning doesn’t matter. People should be armed and train in operation and safe handling/storage/maintenance of their weapon, just in case it’s needed.

Yes. Will the court decide in your favor? Who knows, but I’d wager probably not. It’s better to try it and find out then let this happen though, or probably a better idea would be to get out ASAP and try to become a ghost if possible. Eventually this won’t be tolerated, but people need to see others stand up before they will usually.

Even better, have your police force enforce the damn law. Arrest these men when they try to kidnap people without a warrant.