Phanatik

Even the Wayback Machine has limits to what is available.

Looks great, I’ll give it a bash

The Age rating is who can use the App, not how long it’s been up.

One of the simplest ways to safeguard against breakage is to have your /home on a separate partition. I realised I wouldn’t need to backup and reformat it from the beginning, I just need to wipe the root drive and reinstall again.

It’s made even easier by writing an installation script. Simply put, you can pipe a list of packages into packstrap and use a little convenience package for pulling a partition scheme out of a file.

I like to tinker and I’m aware that things will break so I have these tools that let me rebuild the system again in as short a time as possible.

YouTube will actually take action and has done in most instances. I won’t say they’re the fastest but they do kick people off the platform if they deem them high risk.

I don’t understand the comments suggesting this is “guilty by proxy”. These platforms have algorithms designed to keep you engaged and through their callousness, have allowed extremist content to remain visible.

Are we going to ignore all the anti-vaxxer groups who fueled vaccine hesitancy which resulted in long dead diseases making a resurgence?

To call Facebook anything less than complicit in the rise of extremist ideologies and conspiratorial beliefs, is extremely short-sighted.

“But Freedom of Speech!”

If that speech causes harm like convincing a teenager walking into a grocery store and gunning people down is a good idea, you don’t deserve to have that speech. Sorry, you’ve violated the social contract and those people’s blood is on your hands.

Wayland isn’t trying to be X12 and since X11 has been around, there haven’t been plans for there to be an X12 either. You want to discourage people from using Wayland but don’t encourage people to contribute to X11. You’re so hellbent on taking Wayland down, rather than further convincing people that X11 is superior and it’s easier to improve.

Whenever some dipshit responds to me with “you’re talking about AGI, this is AI”, my only reply is fuck right off.

I’ve just done the dance already and I’m tired of their watered-down attempts at bringing human complexity down to a level that makes their chat bots seem smart.

I don’t need a theory for this, you’re being highly reductive by focusing on a few features of human communication.

What research? These bots aren’t that complicated beyond an optimisation algorithm. Regardless of the tasks you give it, it can’t evolve beyond what it is.

There’s no way these chatbots are capable of evolving into Ultron. That’s like saying a toaster is capable of nuclear fusion.

Sounds like a great car! It does seem like something’s wrong with the battery so a replacement is in order.

From the replies I’ve been getting, I think so.

My mum’s 2019 Toyota Yaris has to have its engine run every few days or the battery dies from just sitting on the driveway. It could be a faulty car battery but considering this car isn’t even that old and has barely driven 30k miles, it’s not doing so great. I discovered yesterday that my EV charges better after I’ve driven it around and the battery’s warmed up a bit. The car goes a bit haywire when you cold start so it seems like it needs some prep time before a drive.

First of all, we’re not having a debate and this isn’t a courtroom so avoid the patronising language.

Second of all, my “belief” on the models’ plagiarism is based on technical knowledge of how the models work and not how I think they work.

a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human

This would be impressive if it was true. An LLM is not intelligent simply through its appearance of intelligence.

It’s enabling humans

It’s a chat bot that’s automated Google searches, let’s be clear about what this can do. It’s taken natural language processing and applied it through an optimisation algorithm to produce human-like responses.

No, I disagree at a fundamental level. Humans need to compete against each other and ourselves to improve. Just because an LLM can write a book for you, doesn’t mean you’ve written a book. You’re just lazy. You don’t want to put in the work any other writer in existence has done, to mull over their work and consider the emotions and effect they want to have on the reader. To what extent can an LLM replicate the way George RR Martin describes his world without entirely ripping off his work?

i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

If I take a book you wrote from you without buying it or paying you for it, what would you call that?

I don’t control the upvotes so I don’t know why that’s directed at me.

The refutation was based on around a misunderstanding of how LLMs generate their outputs and how the training data assists the LLM in doing what it does. The article itself tells you ChatGPT was trained off of copyrighted material they were not licensed for. The person I responded to suggested that comedians do this with their work but that’s equating the process an LLM uses when producing an output to a comedian writing jokes.

Edit: Apologies if I do come across aggressive. Since the plagiarism machine has been in full swing, the whole discourse around it has gotten on my nerves. I’m a creative person, I’ve written poems and short stories, I’m writing a novel and I also do programming and a whole host of hobbies so when LLMs are used to put people like me out of a job using my own work, why wouldn’t that make me angry? What makes it worse is that I’m having to explain concepts to people regarding LLMs that they continue to defend. I can’t stand it so yes, I will come off aggressive.

Neither is an LLM. What you’re describing is a primitive Markov chain.

My description might’ve been indicative of a Markov chain but the actual framework uses matrices because you need to be able to store and compute a huge amount of information at once which is what matrices are good for. Used in animation if you didn’t know.

What it actually uses is irrelevant, how it uses those things is the same as a regression model, the difference is scale. A regression model looks at how related variables are in giving an outcome and computing weights to give you the best outcome. This was the machine learning boom a couple of years ago and TensorFlow became really popular.

LLMs are an evolution of the same idea. I’m not saying it’s not impressive because it’s very cool what they were able to do. What I take issue with is the branding, the marketing and the plagiarism. I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer.

It’s easy to look at what people have created throughout history and think “this looks like that” and on a point by point basis you’d be correct but the creation of that thing is shaped by the lens of the person creating it. Someone might make a George Carlin joke that we’ve heard recently but we’ll read about it in newspapers from 200 years ago. Did George Carlin steal the idea? No. Was he aware of that information? I don’t know. But Carlin regularly calls upon his own experiences so it’s likely that he’s referencing a event from his past that is similar to that of 200 years ago. He might’ve subconsciously absorbed the information.

The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they’ve admitted that it couldn’t work as well as it does without stealing other people’s work. I don’t think they’re taking the position that it’s intelligent because from the beginning that was a marketing ploy. They’re taking the position that they should be allowed to use the data they stole because there was no other way.

You are spitting out basic points and attempting to draw similarities because our brains are capable of something similar. The difference between what you’ve said and what LLMs do is that we have experiences that we are able to glean a variety of information from. An LLM sees text and all it’s designed to do is say “x is more likely to appear before y than z”. If you fed it nonsense, it would regurgitate nonsense. If you feed it text from racist sites, it will regurgitate that same language because that’s all it has seen.

You’ll read this and think “that’s what humans do too, right?” Wrong. A human can be fed these things and still reject them. Someone else in this thread has made some good points regarding this but I’ll state them here as well. An LLM will tell you information but it has no cognition on what it’s telling you. It has no idea that it’s right or wrong, it’s job is to convince you that it’s right because that’s the success state. If you tell it it’s wrong, that’s a failure state. The more you speak with it, the more fail states it accumulates and the more likely it is to cutoff communication because it’s not reaching a success, it’s not giving you what you want. The longer the conversation goes on, the more crazy LLMs get as well because it’s too much to process at once, holding those contexts in its memory while trying to predict the next one. Our brains do this easily and so much more. To claim an LLM is intelligent is incredibly misguided, it is merely the imitation of intelligence.

It’s so funny that this is something new. This was Grammarly’s whole schtick since before ChatGPT so how different is Grammarly AI?