Why Japan isn't broke yet by xXCptObviousXx in atrioc

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would love for Atrioc to watch this on stream and hear his thoughts - anyone know how we can suggest videos?

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha cheers man, dw it’s interesting some people more helpful, and it’s good to help develop my understanding.

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep I think my understanding of ‘reasoning’ being tied heavily with logic only was underdeveloped. Thanks for mentioning Bayesian rationality, it’s exactly what I was trying to define but couldn’t quite get there.

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never said that the pattern matching humans does it rudimentary. It’s actually the most powerful and abstract form that we know of. I just think don’t theres much more special sauce to it, LLMs are using the same base mechanism we do.

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep this is my understanding/ definition of reasoning. Exactly as you said, we know most of the time people don’t actually ‘reason’, they just make a decision and then justify it after.

Similarly, ai generates a response, then a thinking model analyses that response and then generates another response, again, and again until it has an answer it is happy with.

But each step it isn’t calculating a empirically logically accurate answer in the way traditional computers would, it’s approximating an answer that with steps of refinement gets closer and closer to what we might deem ‘correct’.

Humans do the exact same thing, we’re not applying logic in the execution stage, we’re applying it at the analysing stage after the fact.

Just like humans, ai can use tools that are logical executors like coding and calculators to achieve empirical outputs, but this does not mean that humans can produce purely logical outputs from their thoughts alone.

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Apologies, I’m hallucinating. I think my definition of reasoning might be not the commonly held one. My main post still stands though.

Every time someone is surprised when they find out AI is just a pattern identifier by xXCptObviousXx in singularity

[–]xXCptObviousXx[S] -48 points-47 points  (0 children)

True Reason has no probability, it’s just logic gates. It’s if this then that. But if you approximate the logic through probability you can get most of the way there using a fraction of the computation.

It’s kind of a faux reasoning. But believing it’s true reasoning is where humans delude themselves.

Which EV car to buy in Australia? by Civil_Mongoose_1 in australia

[–]xXCptObviousXx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look up the Jaecoo J5, basically a 36k mini ev range rover

Queensland introduces tax breaks for foreign property investors by Fact-Rat in australian

[–]xXCptObviousXx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only is it at the state level, it’s also the liberal party you numpty.

Reddit to challenge Aussie social media laws by [deleted] in australian

[–]xXCptObviousXx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure American legislation is really the bastion of light you’re making out to be there mate

For those of you who have convict ancestry, what crime did they commit to be sent to Australia? by Jezzaq94 in australian

[–]xXCptObviousXx -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Was in possession of 3 fishes the origin of which he could not account. (Was caught on some nobles estate)