When what’s written is in a language you can read, what’s up with that? Reading is free, so to speak, and it enables laziness by not having to find and ask people stuff

Is removing swords from inside one’s body detrimental or beneficial in this situation?

I haven’t paid interest in over a decade and have made thousands from rewards.

I’m not too familiar with credit cards, do you mean this in a literal money sense or something more complex, i.e. the value of rewards & money?

I had been publishing articles on my own website since 2003, but I did that mostly manually by writing whole HTML pages.

Huh, so literally raw html? I know it’s not too difficult, but I have wondered occasionally how many small websites may have been written that way.

If shareholders and executives are demanding so much money, shouldn’t they be the optimal target for cuts to maximize profitability of the business? 🤔

Fun part is, that article cites a paper mentioning misgivings with the terminology: AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying. So at the very least I’m not alone on this.

Yeah, on further thought and as I mention in other replies, my thoughts on this are shifting toward the real bug of this being how it’s marketed in many cases (as a digital assistant/research aid) and in turn used, or attempted to be used (as it’s marketed).

perception

This is the problem I take with this, there’s no perception in this software. It’s faulty, misapplied software when one tries to employ it for generating reliable, factual summaries and responses.

It’s not a bad article, honestly, I’m just tired of journalists and academics echoing the language of businesses and their marketing. “Hallucinations” aren’t accurate for this form of AI. These are sophisticated generative text tools, and in my opinion lack any qualities that justify all this fluff terminology personifying them.

Also frankly, I think students have one of the better applications for large-language model AIs than many adults, even those trying to deploy them. Students are using them to do their homework, to generate their papers, exactly one of the basic points of them. Too many adults are acting like these tools should be used in their present form as research aids, but the entire generative basis of them undermines their reliability for this. It’s trying to use the wrong tool for the job.

You don’t want any of the generative capacities of a large-language model AI for research help, you’d instead want whatever text-processing it may be able to do to assemble and provide accurate output.

When I wrote “processing”, I meant it in the sense of getting to that “shape” of an appropriate response you describe. If I’d meant this in a conscious sense I would have written, “poorly understood prompt/query”, for what it’s worth, but I see where you were coming from.

(AI confidently BSing)

Isn’t it more accurate to say it’s outputting incorrect information from a poorly processed prompt/query?

Why do tech journalists keep using the businesses’ language about AI, such as “hallucination”, instead of glitching/bugging/breaking?

Thanks! I always wonder how people handle navigation with setups like you described.

Do you use your phone as a remote for it, or how do you navigate its interface?

Unrelated to the content, only to the format, but what odd iteration of Facebook(?) or its like is this from? Is this the mobile interface of FB these days?

[…] I just want to point out that automating things that exist purely in the digital domain is far easier than automating things like ship breaking.

Not that you’re saying otherwise, however isn’t that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?