From Pine View Farm

Geek Stuff category archive

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Cocksure of itself? At the Psychology Today website, Alain Samson warns us that “(b)oth LLMs themselves and users tend to overestimate the correctness of LLMs’ answers.”

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Gullible? It’s willing to buy that bridge in Brooklyn.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

To be trusted implicitly? At the Psychology Today website, Cornelia C. Walther says no way. Here’s a bit (emphasis added):

In three pre-registered experiments involving more than 1,300 participants, something striking showed: When people had access to an AI assistant, they consulted it on more than half of all tasks—and their accuracy mirrored the AI’s almost perfectly. When the AI was right, they were right. When it was wrong, so were they. Most crucially, they weren’t checking. They were simply adopting the AI’s answers, bypassing both instinct and analysis entirely.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

All wet? Just listen to the segment about AI and car washes that starts at about the seven minute mark in this week’s episode of Le Show.

It is both an absolutely hoot and a glimpse into a dark maelstrom of mechanized moronism.

Share

A Picture Is Worth 0

Chef labeled

Click for the original image.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Input for the intolerant? Follow the paper trail.

Share

Grokking the Disinformation Superhighway 0

At the Psychology Today website, Richard Restak warns that, “(t)hanks to the technology of the Internet and AI, misinformation is vastly increasing.” He points out that, not only can AI distort the present, it can distort the past:

Nor is the difficulty in distinguishing the real from the fake limited to the present. AI can provide a phony version of the past by altering photos or introducing characters who never existed into a specific historical context. George Orwell presciently anticipated this in 1984, a Comrade Ogilvy “who had recently died in battle under heroic circumstances.” But although no such person as Comrade Ogilvy ever existed, “a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence.”

Read the whole thing and remind yourself that, even if you see it on a computer screen (perhaps especially if you see it on a computer screen from “social” media), it ain’t necessarily so.

Afterthought:

I wonder how long it will be before the Trump maladministration starts to deploy AI in our national par–oh, never mind.

Share

How Stuff Works: The Crypto Con 0

Non Sequitur pictures the process.

Afterthought:

If Carlo Ponzi were alive today, he’d be selling crypto and NFTs.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Secure? Security maven Bruce Schneier notes that

Unlike traditional computing systems that strictly separate executable code from user data, LLMs process all input—whether it is a system command, a user’s email, or a retrieved document—as a single, undifferentiated sequence of tokens. There is no architectural boundary to enforce a distinction between trusted instructions and untrusted data. Consequently, a malicious instruction embedded in a seemingly harmless document is processed with the same authority as a system command.

Click to read the whole article.

Share

Facebook Frolics 0

The EFF looks at the Zuckerborg’s latest assimilation strategy–enabling facial recogntion in its “smart” glasses–and explains why its a very bad no good stinking idea. Here’s a bit from their article:

If adopted and released to the public, it would violate the privacy rights of millions of people . . . .

Follow the link for the rest.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Corrosive? At the Psychology Today website, Cornelia C. Walther reports that “(r)esearch found that AI improved efficiency while eroding underlying expertise and agency.”

To put it another way, relying on AI to do our thinking for us may make us dumber.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Promoting passivity? At Psychology Today Blogs, John Nosta posits that the risk of AI “isn’t machine thought, but emergent passivity in us.”

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Manipulative? You bet your sweet bippy.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Good for doing homework? Not if you actually, like, you know, want to learn stuff.

Share

Down Time at the Farm? (Sticky) 0

My most excellent hosting provider has informed me that maintenance is scheduled for my server “between February 09, 2026, 6:30 AM GMT. and February 10, 2026, 1:30 PM GMT,” and that some hopefully minimal down time may result. Sporadic bloggery is a possibility.

Share

Post Mortem 0

Steve M. offers some thoughts on why Jeff Bezos has turned the once great Washington Post into the Washington Postcard. A snippet:

And Jeff Bezos seemed to be trying to preserve The Washington Post after he purchased it in 2013. He hired an acclaimed editor, Marty Baron, and put some resources into the paper. More recently, though, he’s tried to make it both leaner and Trumpier. Now he seems to be stripping it for parts, but I don’t think that was the original intention.

Tech guys become impatient when everything they touch doesn’t instantly turn to gold. They expect that they can move fast, break things, and watch the value of their new toy go up because they’ve made it buzzy. But that’s not how mature businesses work.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

A conveyance for the con? At Psychology Today Blogs, Joe Pierre warns us that

AI-Generated Misinformation Is Becoming Ubiquitous

Follow the link and be forewarned.

Share

Geeking Out 0

Screenshot

Mageia v. 9 with the Plasma desktop. The wallpaper is from my collection.

Share

Artificial? Yes. Intelligent? Not So Much. 0

Programmed to prevaricate? At Psychology Today Blogs, John Nosta explains why your AI bot will come up with an answer even when there isn’t one.

Share

It’s All about the Algorithm 0

At Psychology Today Blogs, Mitchell B. Liester reminds us that “social” media isn’t. He notes that (emphasis added)

Family estrangement has reached epidemic proportions. . . .

What’s causing this destruction? Causes include substance abuse, violence, and personality conflicts, but a newer and increasingly powerful force is social media algorithms designed to increase engagement by promoting divisive content.

In these algorithmic times, methinks the entire article is worthy of your attention.

Share