Reddit

submitted by /u/ThereWas [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/techhunter_2026 [link] [comments]

I keep seeing more companies giving AI agents access to real stuff like email, databases, internal tools, customer data, etc. And what’s weird is how normal it’s starting to feel now. Like not long ago everyone was worried about chatbots just giving wrong answers. Now we’re basically like yeah sure go ahead and do things for us. I don’t know that jump feels kind of big when you actually think about it. Maybe it all works out fine. Or maybe we’re just moving fast without fully realizing what we’re doing. I’m honestly surprised there hasn’t already been some big headline like an AI agent doing something really wrong. It feels like we’re kind of close to one of those moments where everything suddenly changes overnight. Anyone else feel like we’re closer to something like that than people are ...

So I’ve been using Ai as an art tutor I give it my own art and I review it on how’d I’d look colored a certain way, and how best to detail and shade, as well as a sorta 2d model I can have rotated and view at different angles to get a feel for the shapes and such this is how Ai should be used to teach and improve not to outright replace, it’s like Siri submitted by /u/Intelligent-Fig-1755 [link] [comments]

I was just thinking about the difference between an LLMs capacity for theory of mind and a human's capacity for theory of mind, and I realize it gets at the heart of what differentiates an LLM from human, and that's the method of how we gather information. LLMs are based on objective data, e.g. text, numbers, pixels, etc. Whereas we as humans, use subjective information, e.g., feelings, sensations, experiences; as well as objective data. Within cognitive science, this would be described as affective empathy vs cognitive empathy. Or in other words, LLMs simply possess a cognitive theory of mind, whereas we have both a cognitive *and* affective theory of mind. The problem I have with figures like Hinton, who claim that AI is already conscious, is that his whole framework is based on the idea...

For enterprise AI/security teams, what would make AI SPM useful rather than just another category label? Is the important part AI asset inventory data access mapping, agent permissions, prompt/data monitoring, policy enforcement or something else? submitted by /u/Efficient_Western609 [link] [comments]

I have been experimenting with LLMs to see how well they navigate highly cross-referenced texts like the Bible. Standard models often hallucinate verses or lose historical context. To try and fix this, I built a free app called Biblians (no ads, no paywalls). I built it specifically for people who have questions they might hesitate to ask in person, or who simply want a 1-click way to explain a verse. While testing it, I discovered a fascinating denominational bias that is still lingering and changes depending entirely on the language you use: In English: It is Protestant-leaning. It praises Luther, saying things like, "Martin Luther sought to return the Church to the truth of God's Word." In Spanish, French, or Portuguese: It is Catholic-leaning. It condemns Luther's actions, stating: "....

Back in the 1980s a debate raged about whether it was okay to let children use calculators in elementary school. Critics warned that giving kids calculators would lead to the "destruction of student math skills." A similar debate is happening today across a range of areas, including coding, writing and even music. Will using AI lead a brain drain across these and many other areas? One of my favorite authors is Isaac Asimov. He's better known for his Foundation and Robot series of books where he contemplates whether an algorithm can successfully predict (and guide) humankind's development and the relationship between super artificial intelligence and humans. In some ways he predicted what we're experiencing today with AI: the rise of powerful, inscrutable artificial machines that are so c...

submitted by /u/ProfessorDeep8754 [link] [comments]

After spending the last few weeks reading through the reasoning literature, I noticed a trend that seems worth discussing. For the past 2–3 years, a large fraction of progress in LLM reasoning came from making models generate more intermediate thoughts. Chain-of-Thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022) pushed PaLM 540B from roughly 18% to 58% on GSM8K. Self-Consistency added another 17.9 percentage points by exploring multiple reasoning paths before committing to an answer. Tree-of-Thoughts later showed that GPT-4's success rate on Game of 24 could jump from 4% to 74% when reasoning was reformulated as search rather than a single chain. DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI's o1 pushed the idea even further by allocating substantial test-time compute to reasoning itself. Taken together, these results seem...