this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
871 points (98.6% liked)

memes

17895 readers
1443 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seraph@fedia.io 68 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Science is indistinguishable from magic, if you don't care to learn how science works.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Dicska@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

But... if there's a consistent system along which magic works which can be studied/researched/formulated, then isn't it just... science?

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 4 points 1 year ago

The keyword is consistent. Some settings have magic as inherently chaotic and difficult to control.

A good rule of thumb is that if a fantasy setting has a school for magic, it's probably a science. If it's knowledge passed from master to magically gifted student, it's probably not very consistent.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

magic works

Humans have yet to prove it.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Well, it sometimes does

[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Watch "Agatha all Along" - the series is managing to answer exactly this question with a great script and cast.

/s

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I absolutely feel like in a thousand years, we'll talk to a machine and not even know how it works.

Hell, I look at the computer in front of me and only feel like I know a fraction of what's going on.

[–] CheesyGordita@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Hail the Omnissiah!

[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's what neural networks are now. We do not know how it works under the hood. We just feed it training data.

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

We know how it works, but we can't explain exactly how it got to the answers.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

We do, though.

Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

.

Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.

[–] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Magnets, how do they work?