One of the stupidest things I’ve heard.
I also would like to attach the bluesky repost I found this from:
https://bsky.app/profile/leyawn.bsky.social/post/3lnldekgtik27
Do tech journalists at the New York Times have any idea what they’re talking about? (spoiler)
'We’re going to talk about these stories.'
The author of this latest advertorial, Kevin Roose, has a podcast called “Hard Fork”.
Here he and his co-host attempt to answer the question “What’s a Hard Fork?”:
kevin roose: Casey, we should probably explain why our podcast is called “Hard Fork.”
casey newton: Oh, yeah. So our other names didn’t get approved by “The New York Times” lawyers.
kevin roose: True.
casey newton: And B, it’s actually a good name for what we’re going to be talking about. A “hard fork” is a programming term for when you’re building something, but it gets really screwed up. So you take the entire thing, break it, and start over.
kevin roose: Right.
casey newton: And that’s a little bit what it feels like right now in the tech industry. These companies that you and I have been writing about for the past decade, like Facebook, and Google, and Amazon, they’re all kind of struggling to stay relevant.
kevin roose: Yeah. We’ve noticed a lot of the energy and money in Silicon Valley is shifting to totally new ideas — crypto, the metaverse, AI. It feels like a real turning point when the old things are going away and interesting new ones are coming in to replace them.
casey newton: And all this is happening so fast, and some of it’s so strange. I just feel like I’m texting you constantly, “What is happening? What is this story? Explain this to me. Talk with me about this, because I feel like I’m going insane.”
kevin roose: And so we’re going to try to help each other feel a little bit less insane. We’re going to talk about these stories. We’re going to bring in other journalists, newsmakers, whoever else is involved in building this future, to explain to us what’s changing and why it all matters.
casey newton: So listen to Hard Fork. It comes out every Friday starting October 7.
kevin roose: Wherever you get your podcasts.
This is simply not accurate.
Today the term “hard fork” is probably most often used to refer to blockchain forks, which I assume is where these guys (almost) learned it, but the blockchain people borrowed the term from forks in software development.
In both cases it means to diverge in such a way that re-converging is not expected. In neither case does it mean anything is screwed up, nor does it mean anything about starting over.
These people who’s job it is to cover technology at one of the most respected newspapers in the United States are actually so clueless that they have an entirely wrong definition for the phrase which they chose to be the title of their podcast.
“Talk with me about this, because I feel like I’m going insane.”
But, who cares, right? “Hard fork” sounds cool and the times is ON IT.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Before we even get close to have this discussion, we would need to have an AI capable of experiencing things and develop an individual identity. And this goes completely opposite of the goals of corporations that develop AIs because they want something that can be mass deployed, centralised, and as predictable as possible - i.e. not individual agents capable of experience.
If we ever have a truly sentient AI it’s not going to be designed by Google, OpenAI, or Deepmind.
Removed by mod
AGI?
These are the same type of people who believed ELIZA to be sentient.
Removed by mod
Nobody forced it on anybody. My work uses gdocs, I just never turned Gemini on. Easy.
i don’t even understand why it’s worth discussing in the first place. “can autocomplete feel?” “should compilers form unions?” “should i let numpy rest on weekends?”
wake me up when what the marketers call “ai” becomes more than just matrix multiplication in a loop.
I think there’s a useful discussion for why these technologies can be effective at getting people to connect with them emotionally, but they themselves don’t experience emotions any more than a fictional character in a book experiences emotion.
Our mental model of them can, but the physical representation is just words. In the book I’m reading there was a brutal torture scene. I felt bad for the character, but if there was an actual being experiencing that kind of torment, making and reading the book would be horrendously unethical.
Do humans deserve human rights? A more relevant debate.
They don’t have them so…
Removed by mod
“Does autocorrect cry when I don’t use its corrections?”
I wish ads felt pain when I skipped them
“Many experts would say no, but I made an article about it anyways.”
Retard level stuff
I have a preconceived conclusion about my anthropomorphized view of a statistical model with some heuristics around it. People who know what they’re talking about say I’m wrong, but I need an idea for an article to write that people will read.
If we lose perspective that computer systems are machines, we’re fucked. Stop personifying computer systems just because they make you feel things. JFC.
“Many of you feel bad for this lamp. That is because you crazy [sic]. It has no feelings…”
Ai lamp turns off and on with free will!
Can our AI fall in love with a human? Scientists laughed at me when I asked them but I found this weird billionaire to pay me to have sex with his robot.
What kind of fluff “journalism” is this?
thanks. my first thought was, “are you fucking kidding me?”
but this is what all the money wants us to think about “AI”, which is definitely not intelligence. they want everyone to accept that pattern recognition is indistinguishable from intelligence.
edit - alcohol makes me talk in cicles
Eliza says hello
It sucks but they do have an audience. I have older family members who swear ChatGPT has a “personality” because it will reply when they thank it.
Gemini in it’s current form? No, but it is a fair question to ask for the future
Yeah, twenty years from now at the very least.
A little too optimistic
Yeah, but it’s like fusion. It’s always 20 years away for the last 60 years.
Realistically, as a dev who watched AI develop from cheap parlor tricks to very expensive and ecosystem crunching fancy parlor tricks that mangers think will replace all of their expensive staff who actually know how to design and create:
Modern “AI” is fundamentally incapable of actual thought. They are very advanced and impressive statistical engines, but the technology is incapable of thinking at a fundamental level.
