• 1.15K Posts
  • 5.77K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 19th, 2024

help-circle





  • Here’s how I might resolve this supposed dichotomy:

    • “AI” doesn’t actually exist.
      • You might be using technologies that are called “AI” but there is no actual “intelligence” there. For example, as OP mentions, LLMs are extremely limited and not actually “intelligent”.
    • Since “AI” doesn’t actually exist, since there’s no objective test, etc… “AI” can be anything and do anything.
    • So at the extremes we get the “AI” God and “AI” Devil
      • “AI” God - S/he saves the economy, liberates us from drudgery, creates great art, saves us from China (\s), heralds the singularity, etc.
      • “AI” Devil - S/he hallucinates, steals jobs, destroys the environment, is a tool of the MIC, murders artists, is how China will destroy us (\s), wastes of time and resources, is a scam, causes apocalypses, etc.

    Since there’s no objective meaning from the start, there’s no coherence or reason behind the wild conclusions are the bottom. When we talk about “AI”, we’re talking about a wide variety of technologies with varying values in various contexts. I think there are some real shitty people/products but also some hopefully useful technologies. So depending on the situation I might have a different opinion.






















  • As a “mathematician”… Yeah this is phony AF. Typical “AI” bullshit.

    The field of application of Grothendieck’s toposes goes beyond the strictly mathematical framework. It makes it possible to connect literary works, which seem at first glance to have nothing in common, as evidenced by the connection between Homer’s The Iliad, Kurāʿ’s al-Muntakhab and Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot. This connection could in turn enrich research on topos, if it is taken seriously as an archeology [20], which invites to deepen the knowledge of things beyond binary oppositions to explore how things are formed

    lmao. fraud. Foucault is cool and all, but dude was not writing about categories and sheaves. Not even close.

    With Poincaré, we discover that building a bridge between things –a topos– can arise from an intuition

    lol no. They can’t just call anything a “topos”. That’s not how math works. This paper is entertaining but that’s about it.