| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:33:45 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
21 files (18,502K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,040 |
The Futurism site is mostly hokey, but this is kinda interesting:https://futurism.com/future-society/ai-power-usage-text-to-video-generator"To spit out a five-second clip, the researchers found that it takesthe equivalent of running a microwave for over an hour."Imagine a sort of DDOS attack on an AI site that deliberately burnspower.Maybe it could be viral, as in making various AI sites bomb oneanother.There might be one magical question that spins off gigawatt-hours ofenergy.The only defense would be to require secure payment for energy used,and even that could be hacked.
The Futurism site is mostly hokey, but this is kinda interesting:
https://futurism.com/future-society/ai-power-usage-text-to-video-generator
"To spit out a five-second clip, the researchers found that it takes
the equivalent of running a microwave for over an hour."
Imagine a sort of DDOS attack on an AI site that deliberately burns
power.
Maybe it could be viral, as in making various AI sites bomb one
another.
There might be one magical question that spins off gigawatt-hours of
energy.
The only defense would be to require secure payment for energy used,
and even that could be hacked.
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might
be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
On 9/26/2025 10:12 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might
be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
It would be interesting to get a metric regarding how much "work" (effort?) it put into solving particular problems -- not elapsed time but, rather, MIPS-secs or Watts or some other measure of effort.
And, see if there is some threshold beyond which it simply "gives up"...
Or, some other indication of what "keeps it interested"!
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10b86pf$1ir4a$1@dont-email.me...
On 9/26/2025 10:12 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might >>> be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
It would be interesting to get a metric regarding how much "work" (effort?) >> it put into solving particular problems -- not elapsed time but, rather,
MIPS-secs or Watts or some other measure of effort.
And, see if there is some threshold beyond which it simply "gives up"...
Or, some other indication of what "keeps it interested"!
If you want to really confuse Grok, try this:
Un petit d'un petit s'etonne aux halles
Un petit d'un petit a degre te falle
If you want to be even more ridiculous try this:
Center Alley worse jester pore ladle gull how lift wetter stop-murder an toe heft-cisterns.
Daze worming war furry wicket an shellfish parsons, spatially dole stop-murder, hoe dint lack
Center Alley an, infect, word orphan traitor pore gull mar lichen ammonol dinner hormone bang.
Grok does get some of it right.
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might
be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
So I enjoyed myself by typing the following paragraph.
When ending the roads should be on time for everything has meaning and we
can just throw out the bad parts. So I would like to know why there is no
end to this and what we can do to strengthen the reasoning. I will start
with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for
reasoning.
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might
be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
So I enjoyed myself by typing the following paragraph.
When ending the roads should be on time for everything has meaning and we
can just throw out the bad parts. So I would like to know why there is no
end to this and what we can do to strengthen the reasoning. I will start
with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for
reasoning.
Wonderful! Have you ever considered becoming a politician?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Edward Rawde <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
That made me wonder what current AI would make of a paragraph which might
be nonsense but can you be really sure about that?
So I enjoyed myself by typing the following paragraph.
When ending the roads should be on time for everything has meaning and we
can just throw out the bad parts. So I would like to know why there is no
end to this and what we can do to strengthen the reasoning. I will start
with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for
reasoning.
Wonderful! Have you ever considered becoming a politician?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10bd46u$2ppnb$1@dont-email.me...
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Yeah I've seen that one too.
Looks like Grok had online help with that to me.
On 9/29/2025 7:10 AM, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10bd46u$2ppnb$1@dont-email.me...
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Yeah I've seen that one too.
Looks like Grok had online help with that to me.
That's the problem with "exhaustive" solutions -- there's no "reasoning" involved. A *human* can readily solve it, even if not "instantaneously".
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10be7gi$32u0q$1@dont-email.me...
On 9/29/2025 7:10 AM, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:10bd46u$2ppnb$1@dont-email.me...
Hard to say what keeps it interested but it clearly spends longer "thinking" about any problem
which produces no search engine results at all. Unlike the two examples above.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Yeah I've seen that one too.
Looks like Grok had online help with that to me.
That's the problem with "exhaustive" solutions -- there's no "reasoning"
involved. A *human* can readily solve it, even if not "instantaneously".
It's clearly true that the kind of chat based AI currently found online does not
come anywhere close to thinking for itself. It does not even learn from its mistakes.
So I enjoyed myself by typing the following paragraph.
When ending the roads should be on time for everything has meaning and
we can just throw out the bad parts. So I would like to know why there
is no end to this and what we can do to strengthen the reasoning.
I will start with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for reasoning.
And I pasted it into Grok.
On 9/27/2025 1:12 AM, Edward Rawde wrote:
So I enjoyed myself by typing the following paragraph.
When ending the roads should be on time for everything has meaning and
we can just throw out the bad parts. So I would like to know why there
is no end to this and what we can do to strengthen the reasoning.
I will start with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for reasoning.
And I pasted it into Grok.
Was "I will start with more detail when I have arranged the content as necessary for reasoning." the response, or part of what you
asked it?
Just part of the nonsense I fed into it.
We all know Garbage in Garbage out.
Current LLMs seem to be a case of Garbage in and hope something useful comes out.
On 10/2/2025 9:48 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
Just part of the nonsense I fed into it.
We all know Garbage in Garbage out.
Current LLMs seem to be a case of Garbage in and hope something useful comes out.
Well then aren't you going to say what its response was?
"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in message news:10bncbq$1bm5d$2@dont-email.me.......
On 10/2/2025 9:48 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
Just part of the nonsense I fed into it.
We all know Garbage in Garbage out.
Current LLMs seem to be a case of Garbage in and hope something useful comes out.
[Begin word salad]
If the words of many are expected to find time and reasons then
why can't we deduce the complexity of forever by using our skills
to manipulate the characteristics of the associated events?
Is it because we are not centred on the structure of the problem?
Or could it be that there are infinitely possible solutions?
[End word salad]
"Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:10bnfol$99e$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in message news:10bncbq$1bm5d$2@dont-email.me.......
On 10/2/2025 9:48 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
Just part of the nonsense I fed into it.
We all know Garbage in Garbage out.
Current LLMs seem to be a case of Garbage in and hope something useful comes out.