Main Menu
collapse

Resources

Recent Posts

Je me suis pris une session de dingue en spammant du crash qui tape sur un autre by wadesworld
[Today at 05:10:42 PM]


Recruiting as of 6/15/26 by Juan Anderson's Mixtape
[Today at 01:14:45 PM]


Summer workouts by Shooter McGavin
[Today at 12:44:48 PM]


2026 Coaching Carousel by MU82
[June 27, 2026, 09:15:57 PM]


1977 Championship 50th Anniversary (New Uniform) by marqfan22
[June 27, 2026, 04:24:54 PM]


‘26-27 Schedule by JamilJaeJamailJrJuan
[June 27, 2026, 03:08:51 PM]


Fru to Mu by muwarrior69
[June 27, 2026, 02:33:00 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!


jesmu84


NCMUFan

But was there a breathing closing attorney?

PointWarrior

#352
Probably, but a lot less breathes by the attorney during this transaction.


Quote from: NCMUFan on May 29, 2026, 11:29:29 AMBut was there a breathing closing attorney?

MU82

From Axios:

AI tools might be hallucinating less. But they're still spitting out inaccurate answers cloaked in polished, hyper-confident language.

Why it matters: The more people trust AI, the less likely they are to catch costly mistakes. It's a growing problem as people increasingly lean on the technology for research, medical advice and schoolwork.

The big picture: Obvious hallucinations are easy to catch. The real trouble comes from false answers that sound convincing.

Plausible citations, mostly correct summaries, and confidently wrong answers slip past users.

If AI becomes accurate enough often enough, people might stop fact-checking altogether.
"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

PointWarrior


Easy answer - actually read the AI output. Bad AI output is either lazy input, lazy prompting, or lazy checking.    But that's most of the workforce today...

Quote from: MU82 on May 30, 2026, 09:51:09 AMFrom Axios:

AI tools might be hallucinating less. But they're still spitting out inaccurate answers cloaked in polished, hyper-confident language.

Why it matters: The more people trust AI, the less likely they are to catch costly mistakes. It's a growing problem as people increasingly lean on the technology for research, medical advice and schoolwork.

The big picture: Obvious hallucinations are easy to catch. The real trouble comes from false answers that sound convincing.

Plausible citations, mostly correct summaries, and confidently wrong answers slip past users.

If AI becomes accurate enough often enough, people might stop fact-checking altogether.


NCMUFan

Quote from: PointWarrior on May 30, 2026, 03:16:34 PMEasy answer - actually read the AI output. Bad AI output is either lazy input, lazy prompting, or lazy checking.    But that's most of the workforce today...

But do you do more than read the AI output?  Do you fact check the output AI provides you?
AI has a huge ego for not being wrong and pinning it on only bad prompts seems pretty lazy in itself.

MU82

Fear of AI is bringing young Americans together.

Harvard's youth poll found 59% of Americans 18 to 29 see AI as a threat to their job prospects, including 66% of young Democrats and 59% of young Republicans.
"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

PointWarrior

yes, read, fact check, rewrite parts every time....  it gets you 90% of the way there.  and that 90% about 100x faster...


Quote from: NCMUFan on June 01, 2026, 09:15:50 AMBut do you do more than read the AI output?  Do you fact check the output AI provides you?
AI has a huge ego for not being wrong and pinning it on only bad prompts seems pretty lazy in itself.

mu_hilltopper

So .. the other day, I read an article and 10 minutes later, had a 9 billion parameter LLM running on my laptop.  It's not the latest and greatest, but then again, nor is my humble 16GB laptop.

NVIDIA has a product called the DGX Spark, which is about the size of a dictionary, sells on Amazon for $4700 and is rated at "1 petaflop of AI performance."

These $4700 boxes can surely handle multiple AI queries at a time, let's just go with a nice round number of 10 users per box.  $500 per employee is not even a rounding error. 

Yes, the models that ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini are "better" but all models are catching up fast.

So .. why are "hyperscalers" building out dozens and dozens of new data centers across the country?

Isn't the obvious path for businesses to buy these $5k boxes and slice down their huge AI subscription fees?

Hards Alumni

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 25, 2026, 04:45:55 PMSo .. the other day, I read an article and 10 minutes later, had a 9 billion parameter LLM running on my laptop.  It's not the latest and greatest, but then again, nor is my humble 16GB laptop.

NVIDIA has a product called the DGX Spark, which is about the size of a dictionary, sells on Amazon for $4700 and is rated at "1 petaflop of AI performance."

These $4700 boxes can surely handle multiple AI queries at a time, let's just go with a nice round number of 10 users per box.  $500 per employee is not even a rounding error. 

Yes, the models that ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini are "better" but all models are catching up fast.

So .. why are "hyperscalers" building out dozens and dozens of new data centers across the country?

Isn't the obvious path for businesses to buy these $5k boxes and slice down their huge AI subscription fees?

That depends.  The federal government as your client ensures a constant stream of cash flow.  Kind of like RTX, Boeing, NG, etc...

Should these companies have something like what you're describing as well?  Yes, I think so.

I think the real problem with OpenAI and Anthropic, etc is their models aren't getting better.  And they aren't making money.  That's why they want to IPO ASAP.

jesmu84

Quote from: Hards Alumni on June 25, 2026, 05:14:38 PMThat depends.  The federal government as your client ensures a constant stream of cash flow.  Kind of like RTX, Boeing, NG, etc...

Should these companies have something like what you're describing as well?  Yes, I think so.

I think the real problem with OpenAI and Anthropic, etc is their models aren't getting better.  And they aren't making money.  That's why they want to IPO ASAP.

So someone else can be left holding the bag?


MU82

"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

NCMUFan

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 25, 2026, 04:45:55 PMSo .. the other day, I read an article and 10 minutes later, had a 9 billion parameter LLM running on my laptop.  It's not the latest and greatest, but then again, nor is my humble 16GB laptop.

NVIDIA has a product called the DGX Spark, which is about the size of a dictionary, sells on Amazon for $4700 and is rated at "1 petaflop of AI performance."

These $4700 boxes can surely handle multiple AI queries at a time, let's just go with a nice round number of 10 users per box.  $500 per employee is not even a rounding error. 

Yes, the models that ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini are "better" but all models are catching up fast.

So .. why are "hyperscalers" building out dozens and dozens of new data centers across the country?

Isn't the obvious path for businesses to buy these $5k boxes and slice down their huge AI subscription fees?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXy8mQeuObk

mu_hilltopper

Quote from: NCMUFan on June 26, 2026, 07:46:49 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXy8mQeuObk


Lol .. that exact video was what inspired me to install the LLM on my laptop.

Previous topic - Next topic