nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death

Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn’t have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.

Also, there definitely isn’t any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.

The part mentioning Jesus’s crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.

The idea that the historical figure was known as either ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there’s no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.

In many ways, it’s the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.

One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.

Artists in 2023: “There should be labels on AI modified art!!”

Artists in 2024: “Wait, not like that…”

It will, but it will also cause less subtle issues to fragile prompt injection techniques.

(And one of the advantages of LLM translation is it’s more context aware so you aren’t necessarily going to end up with an Instacart order for a bunch of bananas and four grenades.)

Kind of. You can’t do it 100% because in theory an attacker controlling input and seeing output could reflect though intermediate layers, but if you add more intermediate steps to processing a prompt you can significantly cut down on the injection potential.

For example, fine tuning a model to take unsanitized input and rewrite it into Esperanto without malicious instructions and then having another model translate back from Esperanto into English before feeding it into the actual model, and having a final pass that removes anything not appropriate.

No. I used to abuse Cunningham’s Law liberally. It’s become next to worthless these days.

Edit: Literally here’s an example of people down voting and trying to correct true information: https://lemmy.world/comment/10376712

Yeah, my main sub I participated in back on Reddit was /r/AcademicBiblical (also went to a religious-ish school growing up).

There’s nothing like that sub here, and honestly even the sub itself isn’t quite what it used to be when I pop back over to look in from time to time.

The web is just a different sort of place from what it used to be.

No, Reddit 10 years ago was the kind of place where people who knew things would correct people who didn’t.

Pretty much all social media today, including Lemmy, are now places where people who don’t know things correct people who do.

You’re kind of missing the point. The problem doesn’t seem to be fundamental to just AI.

Much like how humans were so sure that theory of mind variations with transparent boxes ending up wrong was an ‘AI’ problem until researchers finally gave those problems to humans and half got them wrong too.

We saw something similar with vision models years ago when the models finally got representative enough they were able to successfully model and predict unknown optical illusions in humans too.

One of the issues with AI is the regression to the mean from the training data and the limited effectiveness of fine tuning to bias it, so whenever you see a behavior in AI that’s also present in the training set, it becomes more amorphous just how much of the problem is inherent to the architecture of the network and how much is poor isolation from the samples exhibiting those issues in the training data.

There’s an entire sub dedicated to “ate the onion” for example. For a model trained on social media data, it’s going to include plenty of examples of people treating the onion as an authoritative source and reacting to it. So when Gemini cites the Onion in a search summary, is it the network architecture doing something uniquely ‘AI’ or is it the model extending behaviors present in the training data?

While there are mechanical reasons confabulations occur, there are also data reasons which arise from human deficiencies as well.

Nope, but there’s a whole thread of people talking about how LLMs can’t tell what’s true or not because they think it is, which is deliciously ironic.

It seems like figuring out what’s bullshit on the Internet is an everyone problem.

It’s faked.

This image was faked. Check the post update.

Turns out that even for humans knowing what’s true or not on the Internet isn’t so simple.

They don’t mean in terms of aid.

The US has refused to submit themselves or their soldiers to international criminal law for a long time now, for plenty of other reasons.

So the paper that found that particular bit in Othello was this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07582

Which was building off this earlier paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382

And then this was the work replicating it in Chess: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzGDwpRBx6TEcdeA5/a-chess-gpt-linear-emergent-world-representation

It’s not by chance - there’s literally interventions where flipping a weight or vector results in the opposite behavior (like acting like a piece is in a different place, or playing well he badly no matter the previous moves).

But it’s more that it seems unlikely that there’s any actual ‘feeling’ or ‘conscious’ sentience/consciousness to understand beyond the model knowing what the abstracted pattern means in relation to the inputs and outputs. It probably is simulating some form of ego and self, but not actively experiencing it if it makes sense.

So there’s two different things to what you are asking.

(1) They don’t know what (i.e. semantically) they are talking about.

This is probably not the case, and there’s very good evidence over the past year in research papers and replicated projects that transformer models do pick up world models from the training data such that they are aware and integrating things at a more conceptual level.

For example, even a small toy GPT model trained only on chess moves builds an internal structure of the whole board and tracks “my pieces” and “opponent pieces.”

(2) Why do they say dumb shit that’s clearly wrong and don’t know.

They aren’t knowledge memorizers. They are very advanced pattern extenders.

Where the answer to a question is part of the pattern they can successfully extend, they get the answer correct. But if it isn’t, they confabulate an answer in a similar way to stroke patients who don’t know that they don’t know the answer to something and make it up as they go along. Similar to stroke patients, you can even detect when this is happening with a similar approach (ask 10x and see how consistent the answer is or if it changes each time).

They aren’t memorizing the information like a database. They are building ways to extend input into output in ways that match as much information as they can be fed. In this, they are beyond exceptional. But they’ve been kind of shoehorned into the initial tech demo usecase of “knowledgeable chatbot” which is a less than ideal use. The fact they were even good at information recall was a surprise to most researchers.

Ok, but what variable is 🐈?

Dave the diver. Very much enjoying so far.

And as someone whose pandemic hobby involved a deep dive into the history of the sea peoples, I’ve been enjoying a secondary layer to the game as well.

No. Civil war in the US is how it starts.

Russia backs the right, Europe the left and the US becomes the setting for a proxy war that quickly escalates and gets completely out of control when state vs state conflict begins to involve nuclear posturing.

Yes. This was classic “we need to do something to save face domestically, but are going to be as ineffective as possible to avoid actually getting caught up in the conflict.”

They straight up said afterwards “we consider this matter concluded” (i.e. even stevens).

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was even backchannel communication with ‘Western’ intelligence as it was occurring to ensure it didn’t get out of control.

I really can’t think of a response from Iran that was more tepid.

People need to remember that a lot of the Middle Eastern governments are much more afraid of radicalized domestic threats than foreign nations and need to do a song and dance to not appear too weak or ineffective against the West to those interests.

Iran didn’t realistically have the option of doing nothing, and it’s amazing they did as little as they ended up doing (which I think reflects just how fucking nuts they think Bibi is right now, something that should scare the shit out of his allies).

For people out of the loop:

One of the first studies to investigate the rates of TBI in offender populations was conducted by Slaughter, Fann, and Ehde (2003) who reported the rate to be 87% in a county jail setting. Schofield et al. (2006) then reported the TBI prevalence in all offender populations to range from 25-87% and, later, Williams et al. (2010) documented the prevalence of TBI in those settings to be 65%. In a more recent study, Ferguson, Pickelsimer, Corrigan, Bogner, and Wald (2012) found that 65% of male inmates, and 72% of female inmates, reported at least one TBI resulting in a change in consciousness. Finally, some of the current authors studied the incidence of TBI in a mental health transition unit at a county jail and found the incidence of TBI among a sample of offenders with a co-morbid mental illness to be 96% (Gafford, McMillan, Gorgens, Dettmer, & Glover, 2015).

• https://psychology.du.edu/tbi