This is so good that it's disarming. People are going to blabber everything to it, so we need a local private model. It's a lot to ask, I know. Incredible tech.
But then I thought of one more question to ask, reconnected to ask it, and it said, "Hey! You hung up just as we were just getting to the good stuff!" which threw me off, so I stammered gobsmacked for a minute, and it made fun of my stammering, imitating it. Whoa! So so SO good! Crazy good.
I'm creeped-out by this being on someone else's server, but if it was fully local-hosted-private, that might even get more creepy if I allowed myself to really talk freely to this thing.
People keep saying stuff like "but you'll want the human touch." Really? So when was the last time you asked someone for directions? Personally, I'd rather google something or discuss with ChatGPT than make someone listen to me for an hour. And that someone has to be extremely knowledgeable about a lot of different topics!
Even here. Would I rather converse with y'all and get downvoted sometimes, or talk to ChatGPT and refine my ideas? Sorry, fellow humans... even on HN there is too much irrational criticism and off-topic stuff to get anything really done. Oh and you have to wait a long time for each response.
The real question is ... what is the point of any human output on the internet in a few years? Why would anyone want to listen to your post, comment, or anything at all?
Can't see this going well for the fertility crisis.
The tech oligarchs then invest in ectogenesis technology, and use their sperm to dominate the gene pool.
I guess it's a pretty safe assumption :-P
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=futurama+...
I expect a reasonable counterargument here would be 'but the LLMs have chain of thought now, and that's reasoning". I disagree, but I think that's a reasonable point of view. I can concede that point because it does not materially change the value of the output. Even if it does use chain of thought, an LLM gives you extremely trite solutions based on probable text, it still has no context in which to reason, it's "reasoning" in platos cave using the shapes of real world objects, filtered through a lossy language model.
LLMs are great for one thing: brainstorming, and brainstorming is only useful if you have no idea what to do in the first place. Once you know _anything_ substantial about the subject matter an LLM loses its value to you as a conversation partner.
I'm still not on board with the (seemingly prevalent) notion that LLM's can't reason. What's reasoning, anyway? I'm not actively advocating for any side, but the arguments against reasoning always felt very tautological to me.
It's also immediately clear to me when I look at the architecture of transformers that reasoning is not in the cards. I could be convinced otherwise if, again, someone showed me an indication of reasoning behavior. Since there is no such evidence and the systems theory approach tells me it does not reasonably reason, I have a pretty darn good reason not to believe it's reasoning.
I'm not saying that's incorrect, but thb that's exactly the tautology I was talking about!
If no statement is ever evaluated, it's not logical reasoning, because logical reasoning requires the evaluation of truth values of statements.
You could argue that the attention part of the network is some form of truth validation of the next predicted token? But indeed, the current chat interfaces don't change their previous text output retroactively.
Still, I am not really convinced. If we assume a human can reason, what does "evaluation of the truth value" mean? Thinking about something? This is still performed with our implicit mental model of the world, coming from shadows on a cave's wall, right?
Gogole is great for one thing: brainstorming, and brainstorming is only useful if you have no idea what to do in the first place. Once you know _anything_ substantial about the subject matter Google loses its value to you.
I recently listened to an interview with magnus Carlsen on Joe rogan and found the angle of computers helping humans to “better understand the game” (as he put it) and improving human play (for learning, not playing humans) to be very interesting.
Whether that extends to human conversation, who knows. I for one would love to have a “her”-like companion, not for romance but to have a highly intelligent and patient and knowledgeable conversation partner to develop ideas with and learn from, and endless other uses - I think it’d add a lot to my and other peoples lives. I guess I agree with you.
Feels like trying to imagine the societal impacts of the internet in the early 90s.
^ from the post
https://github.com/SesameAILabs/csm is empty for now, but I imagine they'll be releasing it soon: https://x.com/_apkumar/status/1895492615220707723
Try asking if it if it speaks a different language. It will pretend like it can and then give you some humor. But then you probe a bit more and it tells you it is really good at listening and can listen to you in other languages. I tell it alright I'll talk to you in a different language but you will reply back in English. It says you got it and then passes all sorts of tests I put it through with flying colors.
Oh it also remembers your previous conversation and greets you accordingly.
Crazy impressive this will certainly revolutionize virtual office businesses.
My assumption is the LLM can translate no problem, but the audio model can't do Spanish. It seemed like there was an external catch to stop the model from trying too.