snooggums

Hey look, a real world example of gaslighting.

Paths tend to branch out into dead ends when going in one direction, which would feel more like doubling back when coming from the other direction.

It does depend on the size and overall layout of the maze though.

That’s because the design tends to split into choices when going in one direction, but less so the other direction.

Kind of like how it is essier to make the way from a leaf to the trunk of a tree than to start at a trunk and reach a specific leaf.

Hell, some of them didn’t even have one path!

You have to add your own supply of semen.

I thought they were referring to the restaurant branded food you can buy from the supermarket snd make at home. Like these two chain restaurant items that I have purchased and consumed.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Red-Lobster-Cheddar-Bay-Frozen-Biscuits-Ready-to-Bake-Makes-8-Regular-Biscuits-15-66-oz-Box/423932600

https://www.walmart.com/browse/food/on-the-border-salsa/976759_976787_1001393_7109351_7154555

There are some frozen ones too, but don’t remember which ones.

Oooohhhhh, that makes sense.

informed dedication opinions.

Hmmmmm

If you sailed by riding the figurehead, sure.

We shouldn’t be satisfied until high level execs and Musk, all of whom profit from Tesla’s sales, are jailed for fraud related to the scam sales in Canada.

Ewww, no. The programmer should have run their unit tests, maybe even told you about them. You should be testing for edge cases not covered by the unit tests at a minimum and replicating the unit tests if they don’t appear to be very thorough.

Yeah, people are frequently terrible at understanding context so it shouldn’t be surprising that a computer has difficulty too.

There are actually a lot of specialized applications of neural network based computing being used for science, but they don’t get the flashy headlines because they are a tool. Those projects use it to find things to focus on narrowing down what people should look into first for confirmation, like ancient settlement patterns, stars that might have planets, and other things where patterns exist but are hard to see.

Some examples are listed here at a high level. In all cases the ai leads to humans confirming and then working from there, it isn’t the end result on its own. https://medium.com/@jeyadev_needhi/uncovering-the-past-how-ai-is-transforming-archaeology-38ded420896d

It is hard because they chose to make it hard by trying to do far too many things at the same time and sell it as a complete product.

Yes, the tradeoff between constrained randomization and accurately vomiting back the information it was fed is going to be difficult as long as it it designed to be interacted with as if it was a human who can know the difference.

It could be handled by having clearly defined ways of conveying whether the user wants factual or randomized output, but that would shatter the veneer of being intelligent.

This is because AI is not aware of context due to not being intelligent.

What is called creative is really just randomization within the constraints of the design. That reduces accuracy, because of the randomization. If the ‘creativity’ is reduced, it becomes more accurate because it is no longer adding changes.

Using words like creativity, self sabotage, hallucinations, etc. all make it seem like AI is far more advanced than it actually is.

Design requirements are what it should do, not how it does it.

What, like some kind of design requirements?

Heresy!

Do streamers call themselves influencers?

That’s the password to my luggage!

People are pretty good at remembering the negatives and forgetting positives.

Maybe you just remember the mean ones.