Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Not all chronic ailments have yet been cured, but there is promising research in many of those areas, such as lifestyle and environmental factors https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.585744/full, cell based therapy https://research.uga.edu/news/medical-researcher-is-using-our-own-cells-to-cure-disease/ and microbiomes https://research.ucalgary.ca/research/research-plan/infections-inflammation-and-chronic-diseases ; so, no, they're not sitting idle, saying, "You'll just have to manage it." Not all diseases will ever be cured, because as we cure more of them and live longer, new viruses, toxins and malfunctions come after us. What've you got against bus drivers? I do agree, though; patients ought to have a voluntary emergency exit.
  3. So AI can now compose dull poetry. That said, the line discussions and debates that never end seems uncannily accurate! 😀
  4. Not all is bad in the ChatGPT world. Look at this:
  5. Yesterday
  6. Noted thanks. Yes, I am watching with interest and learning lots as I don't really know much about AI.
  7. Oh, I see. "Assuming a syllogism" was a bad choice of words. With this "assuming a syllogism" I was referring to the illusion it creates, IMO. But the system is not thinking logically, at least not a 100% so. The only logic is a logic of "most trodden paths" so to speak. I may be wrong, of course. Perhaps modern AI implements modules of propositional logic in some way. I'm no expert. 😊 I liked your "experiments" anyway.
  8. @joigus I guess that the crucial difference between a human and the ChatGPT's experiences is in their context: the latter is an experience of language, while the former is an experience of language-in-real-life. For example, we easily visualize a daughter and her mother, and in this mental picture the mother is clearly older than the daughter. The ChatGPT instead knows only how age comparison appeared in texts. Yes, you're right: the red box denotes what I say and the green one denotes what AI says. No, sometimes it says that it cannot answer, with some explanation why.
  9. Thanks for the info. So am I right in assuming that Your red box denotes an input question and your green box denotes the AI response ? It seems to me that the AI is conditioned to always give an answer, unlike a human. Isn't this a drawback ?
  10. One factor is that similarly to other hot topics like immigration, politics likes to seize on such rather complex questions in order to gain cheap points. Rather quickly these issues then become rallying points and are not discussed in sufficient depth anymore. It is also funny to me that some folks argue that all that wokeness is finally causing backlash- whereas in fact the term is in itself a backlash to a status quo where systemic injustice was considered the norm and justified. The blame for inequality was then squarely placed on certain, typically powerless groups. I mean, in this thread there are a couple of important steps such as "hey hold on, how do we define woke in the first place?". Even such simple things are often not addressed in what passes as public discourse nowadays. Edit: I feel like I should start embracing old man attitude and hypocritically blame social media for all failings of modern society. While writing a post on social media.
  11. Yes, @joigus, the experience, i.e., the training statistics emphasis of your hypothesis seems to me a right way to analyze this behavior. It was the following specification that looks unsupported:
  12. Since COVID, my lab worked on VAP for a few years. FUUUUUUUCK drowning to death in your own lung fluid. If I'm ever on a ventilator and my SpO2 is still crashing, please just throw me out on the road under a bus. I'd also just state that modern medicine and hygiene doubled human life expectancy in 2 generations. Washing your hands/autoclaves/penicillin aren't sexy, but comparing my iphone to being dead at 35 makes it pretty clear.
  13. I've spent 7 years as a faculty member at a minority serving institution and have a few insights that might be worthwhile into the whole concept of "woke" culture. 1. It's important to recognize that the fact that 70% of the student body comes from minority backgrounds and only 20% of the professors do. There are systemic reasons for that gap, reasons that should be thoroughly explored, identified and ameliorated so that there are no longer inherent biases in who gets to succeed and who doesn't. Evidence show the biases run deep - school districting, mortgage lending, access to medical care, etc and so on all affect opportunity. Contrary to DeSantis's lawyer's asinine comment, it's important to recognize that the playing field is not level and that race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability status etc all impact the opportunities an individual has to achieve 2. This can lead to a toxic environment (looking at you academic twitter) where fingers are pointed at people based on their identities as being undeserving or otherwise representative of a social injustice simply by existing. There have been multiple examples of extremely vindictive campaigns aimed at ending the careers and destroying the lives of privileged individuals for what amount to fairly innocuous statements or actions. Using "wokeness" simply to enact revenge on people that one deems to not deserve their position of privilege is counter-productive, I know first hand that what it does is push the privileged - who you need at the table to enact change that addresses inequity, out of the room. They delete their twitter accounts, stop coming to the EDI meetings and stop caring. 3. At the same time, the DeSanitses of the world can't deny the very observable, measurable, fact that systemic bias exists. You can't say that a poor, Hispanic, child with a single parent who has PTSD has the same pathway to becoming governor as a white, wealthy child with a stable home life because we all know that it's just not true. Pretending that they do because acknowledging your privileges played a role in your success/or lack thereof in spite of them makes you uncomfortable, or contests your flawed "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy is just fallacious and leads us back to point 2. 4. So wokeness with compassion is an important pathway to a more just and equal society. It's a term that's abused and corrupted by both sides of the argument, but if the way it is implemented is respectful, compassionate and empathetic itleads to a better place for everyone.
  14. I also disagree with the premise and the comparison with modern telecommunication. The development of the latter was not so much breakthrough, but rather incremental developments of a range of different related technologies. And while it has influence on the society (in positive and negative ways) and especially on habits, I am not so sure about what the "breakthrough" really would be. It had a higher impact on lower-income countries, where cell phones put a computer into almost everyone's reach. But elsewhere I am not that sure what the breakthrough really is, other than convenience and more distraction (yes, I am getting old). So as such I do no think that the technology has actually "solved" much and I am not sure whether that would be the correct or fair way to look at medical progress either. On the medical side of things, breakthrough developments were many, with vaccines for each new disease pretty much on top of the list, as each new effective vaccine radically changes the way we can manage a given infectious disease. Better and safer anesthetics has revolutionized what can be done in surgical practice. Antibiotics were breakthrough developments and we might live to see what happens if they don't work anymore. Insulin is not a cure and not sexy, but just imagine a world without it. I think the impact would be much more immediate than the need to use a landline. Even mundane things such as better health recording system, screening and so on that improves our everyday health so in that regard I do think that the focus on shiny things that we call breakthrough can be a bit misguided, at least when it comes to population-wide impact. Well, pneumonia can be a pretty bad way to go, depending on its form, not to mention that one might spread pathogens. I have quite a few more items on my list that I'd prefer over pneumonia.
  15. But I didn't mean that it derives its conclusions from pure logical assumptions. I meant the opposite: That there's an apparent element of empiricism, as is to be expected from a machine that learns from experience:
  16. To me, to be woke means you realize you've been doing things without question just because it's the typical way. When you question the status quo, you find there's all these solutions that are better for the majority. You wake up to the fact you're being skillfully manipulated by people who can afford what that takes.
  17. I would say more on the philosophic approach to mortality, but Seth has covered much of it quite well. I would add only that modern medicine has been a string of remarkable breakthroughs in treating conditions that either result in early mortality, or lives of suffering and reduced capacity/mobility. (it would be good to see these breakthroughs distributed more evenly throughout the human population - that would require a breakthrough in politics, I'm sure) For example, I am grateful for advances in nutrition and wellness routines that result in me suffering far less from the familial curse of joint problems than previous generations. In spite of the high noise-to-signal ratio of the Web, we have a society with access to far more information on how to stay reasonably vital and fit well into old age. Advances in holistic health have been nothing short of astonishing. (a quick thank you to those who worked out the anti-inflammatory powers of algae oil) Also advances in the replacement of failed joints, limbs, anatomical structures in the ears and eyes, and most of the internal organs. Surgery can now do amazing reconstructions on the most grievous facial disfigurements, and we are not that far from a fully functional artificial eye. People can run and do gymnastics with prosthetic limbs. Thanks to advances in blood pressure regulation, fewer people have their lives cut short by stroke and the average age for a first stroke has been pushed back a decade or more. These are all game-changers that have radically altered the experience of middle and old age for billions of people. And also the lives of young daredevils who get out there and shatter their bones and tear up internal organs on a regular basis. The most important task for a civilized planet would be to extend the fruits of these breakthroughs to the 2-3 billion people who were not fortunate enough to emerge from the right wombs and have access to modern healthcare. (this would also help reduce population growth, because people who are confident their children will live to adulthood tend to have fewer children - it's what population biologists call the demographic shift)
  18. Interesting chat, which prompted a couple thoughts: One, an ET race that coldly calculates and affirms a high value on annihilating an entire planet of sentient beings...strikes me as very likely to be the sort of race that bombs itself back to the Amish farm level of civilization well before they make it into interstellar space. It's hard for me to see a fairly united planetary civilization evolving that would lack an ethical reluctance towards mass murder. I would think such an amoral perspective would lead more towards a planet of small balkanized states too busy feuding to be able to allocate sufficient resources to starfaring. As for "malevolence," I guess this depends on how one defines that term. Some might argue that a race that could justify such abhorrent acts as wiping out an entire sentient race, on a mathematical algorithm, would have a rather profound malevolence "baked in" to their character. And again, it's hard to see this character being one suited for longterm survival of an advanced civilization. My sense is that they would always be skating over very thin ice above a Hobbesian nightmare. (this is one reason I found the Klingons a rather improbable spacefaring race in the Star Trek franchise)
  19. Hrrm interesting thought. Technically the Langrangian paths of the particle interactions will follow the path of least action. So there may very well be some truth in that statement.
  20. @joigus, it doesn't look like a result of logical assumptions, because on one hand, it derives truth from the question itself in this example: and on the other hand, it is incapable of a simple syllogism in this example:
  21. @studiot, there are thousands of articles about ChatGPT, here is one from the horse's mouth: ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue (openai.com)
  22. To be fair, I define "anti-woke" as "blissfully ignorant". The arguments, to me at least, all sound like "You can't force me to see reality. If I want to drive with my eyes closed, that's my right!"
  23. They may be using the same dictionary that defines "liberal" as "anti-American".
  24. In a recent court case, a judge asked a lawyer for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to define "woke" since they kept using it in their comments. The lawyer, for one of the fiercest "where woke goes to die!!" culture warriors known to any of us, answered thusly: "The belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them." Why do you so strongly object to that? Why is the word "infesting" the right one to use, or do you perhaps have an entirely different definition of "woke" than Ron DeSantis himself?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.