Jodistrict

In evaluating AI, people tend to by confused in their analysis because of a lack of knowledge of the culture. The term “Artificial Intelligence” is a lofty goal that has acted historically more as an inspiration and an ideal than a statement of reality. For example, AI researches initially assumed that if they could get a computer to play chess that would be intelligent. But once they actually got computers to beat world champions they realized that they had developed a program that could only do one narrow task. A program that plays chess can’t recite a poem. So, the final verdict is it is not Artificial Intelligence. This same cycle repeats, and the claim can also be leveled against LLMs. They are highly effective in certain tasks, but ultimately they can only do one narrow task and are not Artificial Intelligence. In a sense, when an AI project becomes successful, it is then judged no longer AI. It spins off and becomes its own field of engineering. So the failures of AI are frequently engineering successes. So there are two evaluations going on: 1) how close is it to artificial intelligence, and 2) is it successful engineering that solves a problem? Another example. LLMS have essentially solved the natural language problem. The natural language symbolic processing of the 1980s is basically obsolete. I am always amazed when I put in complex convoluted paragraph to an AI assistant and it actually understands what I said. If you did natural language based on understanding, like a Chomsky grammar, you would only be able to get It to understand perfectly formed toy sentences. So Chomsky criticizes LLMs saying they use brute force and thus are not intelligent. However, his system would only work in toy worlds. I know people are confusing issues when they talk about the capabilities of an AI program and in the same breath speculate whether it is conscious or has emotions. These issues are irrelevant to analysis of the commercial impact of an engineered product.

Chatgpt told you that because it knew that is what you wanted to hear.

There is another model of AI, contrary to the general AI model, and that is the model of AI as a personal assistant. It’s like having your own personal secretary or employee. It does the grunge works and frees your time for higher thinking. It has been mentioned that the current AI can’t write significant software, but the real question is how much more efficient is it making the current programmers. As a simple example, when I get a new product and want to know how to use a certain function I ask the AI and 9 times out of 10 it gives the correct answer. One minute looking through a poorly written instruction manual is a minute wasted.

Notice that after they admit they are a cult, people immediately start questioning whether they are a cult. Problem solved.

I like the approach of "Unicult". They admit up front that they are a cult and even put it in their name.

"Although I laugh and act like a clown Beneath this mask I am wearing a frown" --- John Lennon

The last time there was an AI bubble crash was cerca 1987. Up to that time, the main paradigm was symbolic processing which culminated in expert systems. But expert systems had a major flaw. They couldn’t learn. So after the rules got to a size of millions it was a nightmare and programmers had to manually update the databases. In other words, expert systems couldn’t be scaled up. AI then gradually shifted to neural networks and the connectionist paradigm. Neural networks have learning built into the system, and the rules are replaced by weights modified by data. Deep learning and LLMs are built with mathematical advances on the neural networks. In addition, the hardware technology available has significantly advanced by orders of magnitude. Thus, the last AI crash was due to a fatal flaw. The current AI crash will be due to over investment as the technology requires billions of dollars of up front costs. But the technology has already proven itself and it is scalable. So the nature and duration of the crash will be different.

That's impressive.

Some statistics: “To swim 1 mile in a lake, you do not need to be an elite athlete, but you must be an intermediate-level swimmer with specific open-water skills. It is estimated that less than 1% of adults can swim a continuous mile without stopping, making it a serious endurance feat.” “You must be able to swim 1,500 to 1,800 yards (roughly 60 to 72 lengths of a standard 25-yard pool) non-stop without touching the wall or resting.” “Expect to be swimming continuously for 30 to 50 minutes. An average recreational fitness swimmer completes a pool mile in about 35 to 40 minutes.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Swimming/comments/u634xr/how_hard_is_it_to_swim_1_mile/ One thing to keep in mind that there is a different muscle development in swimming vs. body building. Bodybuilders put on a lot of non functional muscle mass for show and in a swimming context creates extra weight that leads to early fatigue. All the muscles of a practicing swimmer are dedicated to the task of swimming. One lesson learned here: discipline matters.

This guy was a YouTube entertainer. He had an expressive, pliable face like Jim Carrey. His “spirituality” was jumping on another fad to attract attention and about as deep as his knowledge of longevity. Bro culture is just awful.

Social Media is toxic. Roids – fake muscles DMT - fake spirituality Be water, my friend

Body Building isn't fitness. Pranks are overrated. Aimee Semple McPherson faked her death by drowning in 1926.

I don’t have any problem with that. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all and I am in no position to judge what works for someone else. I just don’t believe psychedelics are necessary or even advantageous. I am more against the marketing and hype. There is also the “wear off” problem, i.e. getting temporary states but no long term change. For me, a natural approach has been more effective.

Or believe egos on drugs.

But it is marketed as “The God Molecule” with “Instant Ego Death” , Quantum Healing, and so forth by its promotors. But now it seems to require the same skills and lengthy amounts of time as meditation. So there isn’t a free lunch after all? So why not just meditate and avoid the risk of brain injury? Meditation has been around for thousands of years and there is solid scientific evidence to support it.