@mattblaze @sophieschmieg I _think_ they're comparing a single-threaded CPU to a modern GPU??? Which is nonsensical. We've had multiprocessing for decades.
As Pauli might have said, this is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
@tankgrrl @sophieschmieg Right. The part I struggle with is how you can know enough to describe parallel processing reasonably well, but not know enough to know that AI and parallel processing are completely different concepts.
I repeat, the void into which we have told you all to scream? The bottomless pit for expressing your existential despair? The yawning blackness of infinity devouring your shattered hopes and dreams?
IT'S FULL. COMPLETELY FULL. OVERFLOWING, EVEN.
WE WILL INFORM YOU OF A SUBSTITUTE AS SOON AS ONE IS AVAILABLE.
Tech companies are revamping computing — from how tiny chips are built to the way they are arranged, cooled and powered — in the race to build artificial intelligence that recreates the human brain.
@Schouten_B @sophieschmieg Or perhaps you could take this as an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of jumping to conclusions and making wild insinuations about people's motives. Bye.
@sophieschmieg Leaving out the context is -in itself- misleading. As the graphic in the context of the article and given the audience is viewed quite differently than in isolation. Misinformation as you well know is very often about leaving out context.
Tech companies are revamping computing — from how tiny chips are built to the way they are arranged, cooled and powered — in the race to build artificial intelligence that recreates the human brain.
This was the graphic that went along with a headline on the online version of the page. Mine is a direct screenshot from my subscription.
it is possible that the New York Times changed the graphic after enough people pointed out how ridiculous it was. But I absolutely did not share misinformation about the Times by posting this graphic.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Carl T. Bergstrom • • •Rob
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Sophie Schmieg
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •I legit thought it was some misunderstanding of quantum computing at first, but then the title says "AI computing" and I got nothing.
(And to be clear, quantum computing also does not work like that)
Matt Blaze
in reply to Sophie Schmieg • • •Robin Adams
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •David Mankins
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Chilly 🛡️
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •💀 Fairchild 💀
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •@mattblaze @sophieschmieg I _think_ they're comparing a single-threaded CPU to a modern GPU??? Which is nonsensical. We've had multiprocessing for decades.
As Pauli might have said, this is not only not right, it is not even wrong.
Matt Blaze
in reply to 💀 Fairchild 💀 • • •Björn 🇪🇺 Starkimarm
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •@mattblaze
It's a case of "so wrong, even the opposite is not correct". F for failed the topic of the assignment.
@sophieschmieg @ct_bergstrom
bws
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Mike (no, the other one)
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Camille 🐁
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •@mattblaze
What do you mean by wrong, science popularization is the art of saying wrong things in an interesting way and it have to be.
@ct_bergstrom
Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Bas Schouten
Unknown parent • • •@causticmsngo @mattblaze @sophieschmieg I don't believe that excuses misinformation...
After all how would someone earn the benefit of the doubt if you blindly accept lies about them?
This is more about being skeptical of information you're being presented.
Even if someone lies about something Donald Trump has said, 'I will accept this as truth because DJT is a madman' seems like extremely thin ice.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Bas Schouten • • •CausticMango
Unknown parent • • •RootWyrm 🇺🇦
in reply to Carl T. Bergstrom • • •...
ATTENTION FEDI: THE VOID IS NOW FULL.
I repeat, the void into which we have told you all to scream?
The bottomless pit for expressing your existential despair?
The yawning blackness of infinity devouring your shattered hopes and dreams?
IT'S FULL.
COMPLETELY FULL.
OVERFLOWING, EVEN.
WE WILL INFORM YOU OF A SUBSTITUTE AS SOON AS ONE IS AVAILABLE.
Nathan Hubbard
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •How A.I. Is Changing the Way the World Builds Computers
Cade Metz (The New York Times)Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Bas Schouten
Unknown parent • • •@sophieschmieg Leaving out the context is -in itself- misleading. As the graphic in the context of the article and given the audience is viewed quite differently than in isolation. Misinformation as you well know is very often about leaving out context.
That aside, wayback machine shows the 'correct graphic' in the article before the post: web.archive.org/web/2025031703…
Having said that the old image may have persisted somewhere, I looked later.
How A.I. Is Changing the Way the World Builds Computers
Cade Metz (The New York Times)Carl T. Bergstrom
Unknown parent • • •@sophieschmieg @Schouten_B @mattblaze
No.
This was the graphic that went along with a headline on the online version of the page. Mine is a direct screenshot from my subscription.
it is possible that the New York Times changed the graphic after enough people pointed out how ridiculous it was. But I absolutely did not share misinformation about the Times by posting this graphic.
Carl T. Bergstrom
in reply to Carl T. Bergstrom • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •