Yeah it’s actually one of the ways I caught a previous manager using AI for their own writing (things that should not have been done with AI). They were supposed to write about something in a hyper-specific field and an entire paragraph ended up just being a rewording of one of two (third party) website pages that discuss this topic directly.
Okay so both of those ideas are incorrect.
As I said, many are literally Markovian and the main discriminator is beam, which does not really matter for helping people understand my meaning nor should it confuse anyone that understands this topic. I will repeat: there are examples that are literally Markovian. In your example, it would be me saying there are rectangular phones but you step in to say, “but look those ones are curved! You should call it a shape, not a rectangle.” I’m not really wrong and your point is a nitpick that makes communication worse.
In terms of stochastic processes, no, that is incredibly vague just like calling a phone a “shape” would not be more descriptive or communicate better. So many things follow stochastic processes that are nothing like a Markov chain, whereas LLMs are like Markov Chains, either literally being them or being a modified version that uses derived tree representations.
Is this referring to what I said about Markov chains or stochastic processes? If it’s the former the only discriminating factor is beam and not all LLMs use that. If it’s the latter then I don’t know what you mean. Molecular dffusion is a classic stochastic process, I am 100% correct in my example.
Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.
Of course, the term “authoritarian bootlicker” is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro’s revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.
I think you’d be calling him a tankie.
But that’s so vague. Molecules semi-randomly smashin into each other is a stochastic process
What term is that?
Because it’s close enough. Turn off beam and redefine your state space and the property holds.
Lemmitors would’ve called King a tankie
“AI” is a parlor trick. Very impressive at first, then you realize there isn’t much to it that is actually meaningful. It regurgitates language patterns, patterns in images, etc. It can make a great Markov chain. But if you want to create an “AI” that just mines research papers, it will be unable to do useful things like synthesize information or describe the state of a research field. It is incapable of critical or analytical approaches. It will only be able to answer simple questions with dubious accuracy and to summarize texts (also with dubious accuracy).
Let’s say you want to understand research on sugar and obesity using only a corpus from peer reviewed articles. You want to ask something like, “what is the relationship between sugar and obesity?”. What will LLMs do when you ask this question? Well, they will just attempt to do associations and to construct reasonable-sounding sentences based on their set of research articles. They might even just take an actual semtence from an article and reframe it a little, just like a high schooler trying to get away with plagiarism. But they won’t be able to actually mechanistically explain the overall mechanisms and will fall flat on their face when trying to discern nonsense funded by food lobbies from critical research. LLMs do not think or criticize. Of they do produce an answer that suggests controversy it will be because they either recognized diversity in the papers or, more likely, their corpus contains reviee articles that criticize articles funded by the food industry. But it will be unable to actually criticize the poor work or provide a summary of the relationship between sugar and obesity based on any actual understanding that questions, for example, whether this is even a valid question to ask in the first place (bodies are not simple!). It can only copy and mimic.
It appears that their bit is to act like they don’t understand very simple memes.
You wouldn’t commodify an animal to the extent that you clone and breed it exclusively for rich losers to “hunt” them in enclosed outdoor spaces using helicopters and four wheelers.
The summary in the screenshot is wild.
Oh I’m engaging.
No, you are ignoring 90% of what I say so that I have to repeat myself because you say things I’ve already contradicted. I assume this is a defensive reaction to having your genocide support called out.
You are fucking stupid. You are wrong. You are arguing in bad faith
If I was any of those things you could run circles around me and tackle my arguments. Instead you are avoiding and ignoring nearly everything I say. In contrast, I have addressed basically everything you have said, despite those behaviors.
You are now defensively lashing out rather than address what I said.
I fully expect that you’re a foreign actor or influenced by them. How’s that for engaging.
It’s the opposite if engaging, it is playing with imaginary BS to continue lashing out rather than address what was said.
Your support for genociders is not strategic and you do not sound like someone that is actually doing anything else. You sound like someone that really wants to vote for those genociders and then stop thinking about it.
You will start from square zero either way. They don’t care about you or listen to you. One of the reasons they don’t need to is that there is no organized, disciplined opposition. Dems expect vaguely left people to fall in line, they don’t even pander most of the time. Look at the DNC where they brought in an Israeli to speak, denied a Palestinian, and brought in the daughter of a Contra to lie about Sandinistas. They didn’t even try pandering. They could have picked a comprador Palestinian to say some both sides BS but instead gave you the middle finger and lied about a ceasefire.
Square zero is organizing. You will have to organize just as much in 4 years. Dems will not slow or stop the degradation of conditions, their neoliberal policies are driving that process. And if there is no left, this only fuels an ascendant right. Every election is going to be “the most important one of your life” for the foreseeable future and Dems will be complicit in this. Our only hope is to organize a left opposition as quickly as possible. Part of that requires shedding the false idea that telling people to vote for genociders is helping. It isn’t. It just normalizes genocide.
I was assuming they meant that all mainstream US politicians were on board with the genocide of Gaza. But maybe I was being too generous.
Your approach is not pragmatic, it is just what you have been told to do by your masters. It does nothing but entrench the genocuders and ensure that they will never have to think about you electorally. It’s a self-defeat.
I speak in terms of building leverage and organizations.
Though really, the issue here seems to be that you refuse to engage with what I say.
There’s no mental gymnastics
You’re using a strained trolley problem analogy.
then fighting the real fight.
Anyone fighting the real fight has already been fighting and knows that your vote shaming for genociders is counterproductive.
It’s you who’s doing gymnastics trying to wrongly convince folks not to.
How am I wrong?
The length of your post alone proves the gymnastics.
My post was not long lol. Though most of it was me repeating myself because your response didn’t address what I said. Same for this last response, too!
Uh, duh? So start replacing them at the base levels and change our foundation? I didn’t say to keep voting for them locally?
Right that’s not going to work. But if you are wed to a failing electoralist strategy that will fail it is better to commit to it so that you can observe that failure sooner.
Do what work?
The work of building socialist organizations.
What’s the plan??
To build the size and quality of socialist organizations until they reach a large enough size to make demands that require real responses. Escalation. And to then depose the capitalist system via the means available to us. And before that, to survive the violence coming for us as conditions degrade and we are not yet big enough.
Are you running for local government where you are?
Why would I?
ALL CAREER POLITICIANS ARE “GENOCIDERS” from what I have seen so far in my life on this planet.
That’s right.
This is why normally I will not vote for a major 2 party candidate. I want to be able to vote again in the future, so I’m willing to do my best to try and make that happen.
What’s the point of your vote if you use it to support genocide? When politicians aren’t really answerable to their voters in the first place? When you have always voted third party, i.e. made your vote into a statement? Instead, just actually be against genocide. Tell others to not support genocide. Do actually helpful political work.
What are you actually saying and doing?
Building socialist and anti-imperialist organizations that are in solidarity with Palestinians. Educating the public. Running BDS campaigns. Materially contributing directly to Gazans.
No where have i found a coherent cohesive plan for us citizens to unite and change this major issue.
The vast majority of people are not organized and are not politically educated. They can’t demand anything because they don’t know what to demand nor do they have discipline to shed the propaganda handed to them by the two major parties. This “left” won’t even withold their votes! Why would anyone ever take them seriously? You must build leverage and make credible threats to have political power.
This starts with the basics of organizing and of political education.
What’s our truly viable recourse here?
The most viable course to stop genocide in Palestine will come from overseas by people actually fighting Israel or undermining its sponsor’s (America’s) ability to isolate and weaken resistance actors. Multipolarity and a decline of the US itself that this would necessarily entail due to the economic system it has maintained. We can help this by helping those doing resistance work and by educating each other. We can minimize the harms of a declining empire by building against militarism locally. Don’t support weapons manufacturers, picket them and make life more expensive for them. Kick their unions out of labor orgs. Fight against the racism and xenophobia that liberals will be embracing evet more in order to justify their warhawk policies.
With organization, you will see escalations and overreactions that build organizations. The Biden admin wanted to ban TikTok because they did not hide the genocidal violence. We should be able to build from these kinds of reactions, all it will take is repeated attempts until it snowballs. Build, act, receive reaction, build from the reaction, act, etc etc.
Please explain like I am 5.
I can’t sorry but please don’t hesitate to ask questions.
Backseat cheerleading genociders, and telling other people to do so, is not helping. It makes you complicit and spreads a false and anemic idea of how political power works. You should be fighting them, not doing mental gymnastics for how you can still justify supporting genociders.
There is nothing strategic in what you are describing, it is actually self-defeating and this is why you are told this logic from on high.
As I originally said, join an org and fo actual work against genociders. Be part of the solution, not part of the genocide-excusing problem.
Do you see how you must dodge and weave to avoid addressing what I say? And now namecalling. Just accidentally reconfirming everything I said.
The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
This is getting repetitive and I think it is because you aren’t really trying to understand what I am saying. Please let me know when you are ready to have an actual conversation.