• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • (pasting a Mastodon post I wrote few days ago on StackOverflow but IMHO applies to Wikipedia too)

    "AI, as in the current LLM hype, is not just pointless but rather harmful epistemologically speaking.

    It’s a big word so let me unpack the idea with 1 example :

    • StackOverflow, or SO for shot.

    So SO is cratering in popularity. Maybe it’s related to LLM craze, maybe not but in practice, less and less people is using SO.

    SO is basically a software developer social network that goes like this :

    • hey I have this problem, I tried this and it didn’t work, what can I do?
    • well (sometimes condescendingly) it works like this so that worked for me and here is why

    then people discuss via comments, answers, vote, etc until, hopefully the most appropriate (which does not mean “correct”) answer rises to the top.

    The next person with the same, or similar enough, problem gets to try right away what might work.

    SO is very efficient in that sense but sometimes the tone itself can be negative, even toxic.

    Sometimes the person asking did not bother search much, sometimes they clearly have no grasp of the problem, so replies can be terse, if not worst.

    Yet the content itself is often correct in the sense that it does solve the problem.

    So SO in a way is the pinnacle of “technically right” yet being an ass about it.

    Meanwhile what if you could get roughly the same mapping between a problem and its solution but in a nice, even sycophantic, matter?

    Of course the switch will happen.

    That’s nice, right?.. right?!

    It is. For a bit.

    It’s actually REALLY nice.

    Until the “thing” you “discuss” with maybe KPI is keeping you engaged (as its owner get paid per interaction) regardless of how usable (let’s not even say true or correct) its answer is.

    That’s a deep problem because that thing does not learn.

    It has no learning capability. It’s not just “a bit slow” or “dumb” but rather it does not learn, at all.

    It gets updated with a new dataset, fine tuned, etc… but there is no action that leads to invalidation of a hypothesis generated a novel one that then … setup a safe environment to test within (that’s basically what learning is).

    So… you sit there until the LLM gets updated but… with that? Now that less and less people bother updating your source (namely SO) how is your “thing” going to lean, sorry to get updated, without new contributions?

    Now if we step back not at the individual level but at the collective level we can see how short-termist the whole endeavor is.

    Yes, it might help some, even a lot, of people to “vile code” sorry I mean “vibe code”, their way out of a problem, but if :

    • they, the individual
    • it, the model
    • we, society, do not contribute back to the dataset to upgrade from…

    well I guess we are going faster right now, for some, but overall we will inexorably slow down.

    So yes epistemologically we are slowing down, if not worst.

    Anyway, I’m back on SO, trying to actually understand a problem. Trying to actually learn from my “bad” situation and rather than randomly try the statistically most likely solution, genuinely understand WHY I got there in the first place.

    I’ll share my answer back on SO hoping to help other.

    Don’t just “use” a tool, think, genuinely, it’s not just fun, it’s also liberating.

    Literally.

    Don’t give away your autonomy for a quick fix, you’ll get stuck."

    originally on https://mastodon.pirateparty.be/@utopiah/115315866570543792



  • Sure, that’s literally how I started both comments but I can try to clarify a bit more my point : if you want to “just” use, this isn’t great, but if you enjoy building itself, it might be even better.

    FWIW I do both, including professionally, so I definitely get the point of making a headset, or anything really (I even do a bit of woodworking and welding) yourself or building thanks to the previous projects of others. I’m definitely NOT suggesting it shouldn’t be attempted. I’m solely warning people who are solely, or even mostly, interested in a usable object while investing minimum effort in.







  • You did but not anymore :

    • Go can be rooted officially
    • Quest 1/2/3/3s can be used without account thanks to PrivateQuest
    • Quest 3 v78 (not newer OS version) can be rooted via a hack

    So yes, by default you are paying with data. In fact IMHO if possible one should not rely on Meta hardware. That being said if you get e.g. a 2nd hand Quest 2 or 3 and use it without an account then you might be providing little to no money to Meta and no data. It’s not trivial but it’s feasible. Arguably it’s even easy for somebody who seriously consider such an endeavor of assembling their own HMD.

    PS: Meta has access to the whole device but… they are not owning the OS itself, it’s still an Android device. The OS is very much driven by Google. In fact it’s quite interesting to consider that Meta failed to develop their own OS and that Google is shipping soon AndroidXR.