I can’t see the thumbnail, but I could already hear the Ryan George character in my head just from reading the image text, so when I saw a youtube link I assumed it had to be one of those skits.

I know even less Mandarin that you, so I hit it with Google translate. It translates the vectors the same as you did. It tries to translate the matrix characters with various odd results. It keeps changing, but guesses things like “Holmium sulfide smear” and “Thorium juice stove gui.” If I actually take a picture so it can do a full analysis on a still image, it transcribes them into surprisingly accurate unicode characters that look almost exactly like the original. It even includes a pronunciation guide, but the translation just says that they are unintelligible characters. I’m guessing that these are syntactically valid character combinations that are basically nonsense.

Huh. That would explain why the exact same person reminded me of himself. Feel a bit silly for missing that.

I dislike cheating as much as the next person, but I do love a good outside the box solution like this. I don’t recall what YouTube channel it was, but there was a guy who made an amazingly inelegant aimbot that worked by electrically stimulating the user’s muscles using off the shelf TENS devices hooked up to a custom controller. He explained what it did and asked permission in chat to use it. The other players thought it was hilarious and agreed to let him do it.

And I mean, like, really REALLY good at pinball.

Go ahead, no one will notice. No one will immortalize it on camera to be viewed across the internet. It’ll be fine.

Steampunk then: What if we combined real Victorian craftsmanship and tech with imagined advanced machines.

Steampunk now: What if I glued two plastic gears to a cheap vinyl corset.

That was a fun watch, thanks for the recommend.

How alaming!

Do a film adaptation. Refuse to change the subtitle.

I’m guessing he means the gun is to deter people from physically harming him, or shoot the ones who aren’t deterred. This in no way helps anyone whose health is threatened by any of the numerous more common threats to health, but that’s not his problem.

When a headline asks a question, then the answer is usually “It’s not that simple, but, no, not really”. Sounds like it applies here. “Well, they often were painted, but no, we have no reason to assume they did a bad job like we sometimes do.”

Edit: The post title was changed to a statement, but the article is still titled “Were classical statues painted horribly?”.

When I was in college, in a network programming class we had a semester final coding assignment. I forget now what all it was supposed to do, but I do recall my friend in the same class spent a week of free time writing his. I forgot about the assignment completely until he asked me how it was going for me a few hours before it was due. With no other options, I simply punched in a example program from the textbook, replaced about 10 lines in the middle and tested.

It seemed to work. So, I very clearly labeled which code was mine, and which was copied, so that I technically wasn’t doing a plagiarism. Then I turned it in, and hoped for the best. I got a 100 on it. My friend was pissed, because he only got a 99.

He always looks like he just trusted a fart he shouldn’t have.

Huh, never tried it, and never done it by accident that I noticed. Makes sense though. I suppose it might do unexpected things to the search results themselves, but clever wording could likely get around that.

I see an unusually yappy hellhound, flames flickering in its empty eye sockets and the blood of the damned dripping from its cute little snout.

AI doesn’t have the ability to critically think

That is absolutely correct, and the deeper problem is it typically “writes” in a tone that fools people into feeling like it can do so.

just outputs what it can find on the internet

That is what this one, the Google search overview, is set up to do. Other LLMs don’t, or may only do so when prompted to.

What they all do is analyze the patterns of all the words that have already been input, such as the initial system prompt, the user’s prompt, any sources it’s referencing and any replies it’s already generated, and then it uses that to predict what words ought to come next. It uses an enormous web of patterns pulled from all of its initial training data to make that guess. Patterns like a question is usually followed by an answer on the same topic, a sentence’s subject is usually followed by a predicate, writing tone usually doesn’t change, etc. All the rules of grammar it follows and all the facts it “knows” are just patterns of meaningless symbols to it. Essentially, no analysis, logic, or comprehension of any kind is part of its process.

This is the Google search overview AI. It just reads the top results and summarizes them together. You don’t directly prompt it, it’s already prompted to just do that. The problem with that arrangement, as demonstrated here, is it will confidently and non-critically summarize parody, idiotic rambling, intentional misinformation and any other sort of nonsense that the search algorithm pulls up.

One of the reasons I switched to a PieFed server. I’ve been happy with the switch though, it feels generally smoother in my browser as well. That’s the beauty of the Fediverse. Even on a whole different platform, I’m still able to participate in this discussion hosted on a Lemmy server.

“AI should always be a choice—something people can easily turn off." “It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.”

How does he not get how contradictory these positions sound. Really a missed opportunity to brand themselves as the browser without AI bullshit and gain users who want to get away from that crap. Sure, they promise it’ll have an off switch, but even if that’s true, they’re still wasting a lot of their very limited budget pursuing it. Really shows where their priorities are.