• 0 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 18 days ago
cake
Cake day: May 20th, 2026

help-circle

  • BonsaiBoo@lemmy.worldtoFuck AI@lemmy.worldThis shit will kill people.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Dude, like a handful of people have any idea how it works, it was completely a black box until recently when they started deciphering how it “thinks” before outputting in any given language. And before anyone argues, yes, researchers have actually started to assess how it processes stuff now, they’ve recorded the binary processing that wasn’t language based and upon suspecting they found the processing akin to what we’d call thinking for ai, they saved the streams, presented it to other ai in droves and asked them to interpret it independently of the other system that manufactured it, and indeed it matched up with the processing of requests, but was not in any human language, it’s indeed machine code, but not like Fortran or cobal or hexadecimal codes that we are used to dealing with, it has its own language. So no one has a library or Rosetta Stone yet to interpret this, and as of now you have to “trust” other AI to tell you what it means. Which obviously isn’t a good idea at all.

    Edit: the paper since some of y’all don’t believe it, and frankly I don’t blame you. It’s new research. "Do Sparse Autoencoders Capture Concept Manifolds?” https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.28119








  • In an ideal world everyone would be completely scientifically literate and well read. In the real world we need to allow for people who don’t have the time or past education but who are interested and can get drawn in by simple titles on social media and manage to find articles that communicate science well enough to get them a foot in the door, hopefully to the point they then get into reading the actual papers. Someone could have linked the actual paper here. That title wouldn’t have drawn in newbies, it’s “Strings from almost nothing”. A novice to sciences would have little to perhaps zero idea what that means. At least this gives an idea, and it wasn’t really misleading in the way clickbait is, it was just shorthanded enough to make pedantic curmudgeons triggered enough to complain about it and rattle on with me in comments.


  • The title, due to a necessary brevity in how titling works on social media these days, doesn’t convey the actual meaning of the finding - they aren’t saying they found the theory in their data or observations or calculations, they’re saying in their data and observations and calculations emerged a core, defining feature of string theory. They didn’t find the theory, they found a very specific feature that is found in string theories, and that’s pretty neat.

    “In a string theory framework, as you increase the energy transfer between particles, you will see a swift fall off in the probability that the particles will scatter. It’s like the particles don’t even want to scatter off one another, but rather pass freely,” Cheung says. “The scattering amplitudes don’t go to infinity. It’s better behaved.”

    The researchers used this ultrasoft behavior as one of their core assumptions. They also assumed a property called “minimal zeros,” which limits the number of special points where scattering probabilities vanish.

    “Remarkably, consistency requires scattering amplitudes not only to interact but also to not interact at special kinematic points called ‘zeros.’ The assumption of ‘minimal zeros’ demands the sparsest number of such vanishing points mathematically allowed by the equations,” Cheung says.

    From only these assumptions, the researchers demonstrated mathematically that the resulting solutions naturally reproduced the central features of string theory, including its characteristic spectrum of particles and interaction strengths.

    “The precise details of string theory emerged automatically, including the infinite tower of massive spinning particles that form the ‘harmonics’ of the string that the theory is famous for,” says co-author Grant N. Remmen (PhD ’17), the James Arthur Postdoctoral Fellow at New York University.




  • He’s not alone, but he’s the wealthiest person in the US, and one of the wealthiest in the world - so he has more culpability than nearly everyone else, especially considering his actions were said to be by himself some of his personal goals and pet projects, of utmost importance. He literally funded trumps election in large part and the Republican elections in general l, while also making a massive non monetary donation of media exposure through twitter algorithm shenanigans and personal posts, so that he could get into the government himself and perform those deeds he did under doge and under the purview of the executive branch. He was considered a shadow president for a period of time thanks to all those acts.



  • The problem with zuck is you have to have a community to survive any situation where the systems break down, and he’s not likable enough or social enough to stay in or properly form a community. He made his money with an antisocial hot girl rating site that turned into apps that fed off making people insecure and scared constantly so they’d forever doom scroll. He is incapable of defending himself from multiple tribes simultaneously, including his own.