• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help Me Understand This Comment

Now it's more about why you claim abaddon is wrong than whether the subject of the OP is right or wrong. You sort of invested yourself in that regard..

Good thing abaddon is not holding his breath..
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Now it's more about why you claim abaddon is wrong than whether the subject of the OP is right or wrong. You sort of invested yourself in that regard..

Good thing abaddon is not holding his breath..
Click to expand...

So the way I see it is this: The OP raises some valid concerns in an inept way. I think there's stuff in there worth thinking about, but I'm not currently excited enough about the subject to go through and unpack it and repackage it in more accurate and coherent terms. abaddon's approach seems to be more focused on calling out the ineptitude, or just disagreeing because of the ineptitude. While I think he's largely mistaken in his approach, I'm really not interested in getting into a recursive point-by-point slapfight over it. If on reflection some one point jumps out at me as being particularly salient and worth discussing in more depth, I'll do so. Otherwise, I'll probably just move on from this thread.

I hope it doesn't bother you too much that I've been willing to put some effort into this thread, even though it turns out to be not enough effort to satisfy your curiosity.
 
Earthborn said:
Regular news sites wouldn't disappear and AP is not going to be overtaken by AI. Probably.

But I can see how GPT-like text generators might be used by malicious actors to produce large quantities of semi-plausible fake stories on large numbers of real looking fake news sites, and such stories getting viral on social media, and if those fake news sites start referencing each other getting high on Google search results.
If a country wants people in another country to be hopelessly misinformed it would no longer need large numbers of people writing fake articles.
Click to expand...


FOX News!
 
plague311 said:
I think "a bit" is underestimating it. Back to the stone ages?

Yes, verifying information is becoming harder to do because of AI, bots, etc. but it's definitely not going to be the end of the world. Google searches for changing oil are perfectly decipherable. There can be complete and total bull **** written on machine typewriters and distributed by hand, as with any other media, including the internet.

He's right in that there's no immediate resolution to this other than people being diligent on what type of information they consume, but National Enquirer, the Sun, etc. were around long before the internet. Still are.
Click to expand...

I have not found Google searches to have become useless at all. Google's algorithms do a decent job of differentiating real content from clickbait garbage.
 
theprestige said:
So the way I see it is this: The OP raises some valid concerns in an inept way. I think there's stuff in there worth thinking about, but I'm not currently excited enough about the subject to go through and unpack it and repackage it in more accurate and coherent terms. abaddon's approach seems to be more focused on calling out the ineptitude, or just disagreeing because of the ineptitude. While I think he's largely mistaken in his approach, I'm really not interested in getting into a recursive point-by-point slapfight over it. If on reflection some one point jumps out at me as being particularly salient and worth discussing in more depth, I'll do so. Otherwise, I'll probably just move on from this thread.

I hope it doesn't bother you too much that I've been willing to put some effort into this thread, even though it turns out to be not enough effort to satisfy your curiosity.
Click to expand...

This. The poster is speaking in terms far too absolute for the topic. Deepfake/clickable junk will surely abound more and more, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it will dominate, or that verifiably credible options will not be able to compete.
 
abaddon said:
OK I will give it a go. West_pac is not a member here so no holds barred.

Comment (by u/west_pac):
All false. Not a good start.

Also false.

That happened years agoThe majority of internet traffic is porn. This has been the case since the 90's

Well, none of it Never have, not starting now.
Because we are all at liberty to get up off our collective butts and actually check for real. But no. Lets sit and wait for the cute nurse with the spoon. What a lazy entitled moron the writer is.

that already happened last century. Geez back to the 1950's with you.

Since that doesn't happen to me, I am wondering about this guys search history. But ever willing, I used that exact search term and found lots of general instructions and a lot more requests for make/model/year for clarity. If this loon is serious, he has a problem.

That is not how it works. That is not how anything works.
Wheeled out the crystal ball, have we? Predicting the future now, is it?

Correct. Because that is not what it is for, why would anyone imagine such nonsense?


Not entirely sure what this idiot is claiming. He outsmarted Siri? That is a feat accomplished by cletus the slack jawed yokel. of simpsons fame. Who is telling me not to drive a car? Nobody. That's who.

Oh the algorithms are getting better in leaps and bounds over the years. Your problem really is that you are not getting the results you want. You could, of course, adjourn to the religious site of your preference. Lots of little altar boys to browse there. But no, instead you choose to vomit your ignorance on the rest of us for no reason other than google will not serve up your particular flavour of porn. Guess what. The internet is not your personal toy. Deal with it.

Wrong.

Wrong, wrong.

Wrong.

Fantasy.
I do not look at the existing one's nor have done for decades. How can this affect me?
Hahaha. How cute. You think reality is on the internet. Too funny

If you were honest, really honest. you would admit that you will do nothing. Again.

Blatant lie. There is a crapton of multidisciplinary boffins considering it

Then either your imagination is lacking, you are unqualified google or you are religious. Pick one. Or all three, I guess.

THE most ignorant paragraph yet

Too late

That is what you desire. You really want a new dark age. Put those uppity wimmin back in th kitchen cookin bread and babies. Yeah, thats where they belong.


30+ years in the printing game here so I know this is a total load.
Click to expand...

Correct. This commentator is an imbecile.
 
theprestige said:
So the way I see it is this: The OP raises some valid concerns in an inept way. I think there's stuff in there worth thinking about, but I'm not currently excited enough about the subject to go through and unpack it and repackage it in more accurate and coherent terms. abaddon's approach seems to be more focused on calling out the ineptitude, or just disagreeing because of the ineptitude. While I think he's largely mistaken in his approach, I'm really not interested in getting into a recursive point-by-point slapfight over it. If on reflection some one point jumps out at me as being particularly salient and worth discussing in more depth, I'll do so. Otherwise, I'll probably just move on from this thread.

I hope it doesn't bother you too much that I've been willing to put some effort into this thread, even though it turns out to be not enough effort to satisfy your curiosity.
Click to expand...

If you change your mind at any point, I'd be very interested to know your thoughts.
 
Childlike Empress said:
There is no "AI". There are programs running algorithms based on "big data". No intelligence involved. Because there is no consciousness involved.
Click to expand...
Definitions have changed. What you are saying doesn't exist is now called Artificial General Intelligence. And it's true - AGI does not exist. However, the term "Artificial Intelligence" or "AI" is now commonly understood to be Narrow AI which is a piece of software sophisticated enough to produce results that seem like they are the product of a humanlike intelligence, but aren't. Narrow AI is produced using deep learning, or neural networks, or big data, or more likely a combination of those.

No-one believes that Siri is an artificial general intelligence, but it is reasonably good at voice recognition and pattern matching such that you can (mostly) get an appropriate response by talking to it. Narrow AI is getting better all the time, but it still does not approach AGI. It's not trying to. It's just trying to do a task "intelligently" (which in this context does not imply self-awareness or consciousness which is why I put the term in quotes).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom