I think to some extent it’s a matter of scale, though. If I advertise something as a calculator capable of doing all math, and it can only do one problem, it is so drastically far away from its intended purpose that the meaning kinda breaks down. I don’t think it would be wrong to say “it malfunctions in 99.999999% of use cases” but it would be easier to say that it just doesn’t work.

Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, if we did the disgusting work of precomputing all 2 number math problems for integers from -1,000,000 to 1,000,000 and I think you could say you had a (really shitty and slow) calculator, which “malfunctions” for numbers outside that range if you don’t specify the limitation ahead of time. Not crazy different from software which has issues with max_int or small buffers.

If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction (and we wouldn’t be having this conversation). If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software. 99.999% of the time, it’d be better to say that it just doesn’t work. I don’t think there is, or even needs to be, some unified understanding of where the line is between them.

Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.

We’re talking about the meaning of “malfunction” here, we don’t need to overthink it and construct a rigorous proof or anything. The creator of the thing can decide what the thing they’re creating is supposed to do. You can say

hey, it did X, was that supposed to happen?

no, it was not supposed to do that, that’s a malfunction.

We don’t need to go to

Actually you never sufficiently defined its function to cover all cases in an objective manner, so ACTUALLY it’s not a malfunction!

Whatever, it still wasn’t supposed to do that

The purpose of an LLM, at a fundamental level, is to approximate text it was trained on.

I’d argue that’s what an LLM is, not its purpose. Continuing the car analogy, that’s like saying a car’s purpose is to burn gasoline to spin its wheels. That’s what a car does, the purpose of my car is to get me from place to place. The purpose of my friend’s car is to look cool and go fast. The purpose of my uncle’s car is to carry lumber.

I think we more or less agree on the fundamentals and it’s just differences between whether they are referring to a malfunction in the system they are trying to create, in which an LLM is a key tool/component, or a malfunction in the LLM itself. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that it did a thing they didn’t want it to do, and that an LLM by itself may not be the correct tool for the job.

Where I don’t think your argument fits is that it could be applied to things LLMs can currently do. If I have an insufficiently trained model which produces a word salad to every prompt, one could say “that’s not a malfunction, it’s still applying weights.”

The malfunction is in having a system that produces useful results. An LLM is just the means for achieving that result, and you could argue it’s the wrong tool for the job and that’s fine. If I put gasoline in my diesel car and the engine dies, I can still say the car is malfunctioning. It’s my fault, and the engine wasn’t ever supposed to have gas in it, but the car is now “failing to function in a normal or satisfactory manner,” the definition of malfunction.

It implies that, under the hood, the LLM is “malfunctioning”. It is not - it’s doing what it is supposed to do, to chain tokens through weighted probabilities.

I don’t really agree with that argument. By that logic, there’s really no such thing as a software bug, since the software is always doing what it’s supposed to be doing: giving predefined instructions to a processor that performs some action. It’s “supposed to” provide a useful response to prompts, anything other than is it not what it should be and could be fairly called a malfunction.

I’ve definitely gone to far with that, but I kinda of enjoy it. The amount of options there are particularly with being able to map a button to the mouse moving somewhere, clicking, and moving back, have made some games feel like they have native controller support when they don’t

Haven’t digital price tags been used for decades? I’m sure these will be more high tech, but I remember ones like this at least 20 years ago

Yeah, I just did a quick test in Python to do a tcp connection to “0.0.0.0” and it made a loopback connection, instead of returning an error as I would have expected.

Minor aside, I really dislike when things use life expectancy for things like this instead of adult life expectancy. Child mortality drastically skews it so much it’s useless.

Looking completely realistic and being able to discern between real and fake are competing goals. If you can discern the difference, then it does not look completely realistic.

I think what they’re alluding to is generative adversarial networks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network where creating a better discriminator that can detect a good image from bad is how you get a better image.

Not necessarily. If your phone uses usb-c, and if you get a usb-c flash drive, you can make a bootable USB with your phone with the flasher app. The reviews are pretty mixed for it for whether or not it works, but could be worth a shot.

Awesome, that happened to me in KOTOR 2, will have to try it again

In my experience, it has not generated results in real time. I’ve either gotten the exact same response, or a prompt asking “would you like to generate an AI response to your search?”

So it seems like, and would make sense, that in a given time period they only generate a response once per given search, and reuse that response in the future, since that’s far more efficient

Huh… Will this message then get re-ingested by chatgpt? Did it just poison itself?

I don’t think it’s still going strong. SteamOS 2.0, the Debian based one that was on the old steam machines has been discontinued and is no longer supported. SteamOS 3.0, on the deck, is Arch based and is not yet officially supported on anything other than a Steam Deck.

The value isn’t for existing PC gamers. It would be for people who are not tech literate, do not know how to build a PC, install an OS, or even tell if a given computer is powerful enough to run a particular game.

I think that’s the real strength (and more importantly, intent) of the Steam deck: to get people who aren’t PC gamers to become PC gamers by making it as simple as a traditional console. Steam machines could provide a similar thing if there were a Steam Machine 1 Verified flag next to games.

Interesting, interesting, so by that logic it’s fundamentally impossible for a country to have inadequate rail service and all rails are of equal quality? I’ll be sure to let everyone know they can cut all funding because none of it matters.

A monopoly with checks notes 30% market share. It has a plurality, but not a majority.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/20/22892939/music-streaming-services-market-share-q2-2021-spotify-apple-amazon-tencent-youtube

Those are different things.

Only surprise for me is that Witcher 3 is so high up. In my experience it doesn’t actually run very well and needs the settings cranked down for an unstable 30 fps. Glad people are enjoying it, though.