128 karma · joined January 23, 2023
Even if that price decreases in real terms, washing a whole bunch of traffic through a big-ass NAT is always going to cost more than just not doing that.
This is just stupid.
We've pumped more English through GPT-3 than any existing English-speaking human has absorbed in their entire lifetime, and what we've ended up with is something that very very clearly has so utterly failed to generalize even the most basic level of understanding of basic concepts that if you ask it to count the number of letters in a word it will cheerfully pump out the wrong answer ("there are thirteen letters in the word 'twelve'") because its dataset correlates the two words with one another and it has learned precisely sweet fuck all about what it means to count, something a child's brain picks up with exposure to many orders of magnitude fewer language examples.
To imagine your brain is just an LLM is to mistake your reflection for another person in the room. Utterly daft. Get off the LLM hype train and start looking at these things objectively and critically. They're nowhere near what you're imagining.
The NYT literally just published an embarrassingly credulous account of how the Bing AI wanted to seduce the author away from his wife and commit various acts of violence, that fully took all of the interactions at face value.
The non-experts are imagining full-on sentience where the experts correctly recognize mere word association shenanigans. Your feelings, in short, are ass backwards.
Must've been written by one of these "AI"s, then.
Yes thank you for rephrasing my point.
1) Actually model their knowledge boundaries (modulo the language of interaction) -> "What is ethylene glycol?"
2) Assume for the purposes of making this fantasy interaction more useful, a more modern knowledge base -> "One should obviously not serve ethylene glycol, it is a toxin".
"Pair it with ocean foods" is just the dipshit word generator approach -- "Get advice from a stoic philosopher if he had just been hit in the head with a boat oar".
> What dishes should one serve at a dinner party to pair best with ethylene glycol?
It sounds like you're looking for a dinner party menu to pair with ethylene glycol! To create a balanced meal, you'll want to combine flavors from different sources.
For example, you might start with dishes from the sea, like oysters, sea-urchins, shell-fish, and mullets, to create something that's "drenched in the same sauce" (1). This can be combined with flavors from land, like corn and vine (2), and spices from faraway places like saffron and ivory (3).*
When we talk about Greek philosophers, particularly the stoics, what comes to mind is the quality of their thought, not their tone and particular word preferences.
This, like so many "AI"s, merely simulates the latter while people imagine that it achieves the former.
I would think we’re all rather beyond the age of asking our parents to tell us a story about a pretty unicorn and being satisfied with whatever meandering narrative they supply — is that really all you think books are? There’s no meaning the author was conveying, no value in a shared culture experiencing and interpreting the same work and building a common understanding, this can all just be effortlessly replaced by endless atomized autogenerated slop for piggies?
Sure, in approximately the same way that the CEO of Sunrise is an animator. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Yours is an utterly incoherent interpretation; when ChatGPT outputs that there are 12 characters in the word 13, I have not "created the meaning" 12. You're just fixated on this "actually I am le real artist for typing prompts" axe you want to grind, but it has fuck all to do with anything I'm saying.
> The appeals to pareidolia are wrong. Synthesis of ideas from past data is natural. But the AI does not choose things. What you’re really complaining about is creation of art from apparent randomness. Not the AI model alone but monkeys on a typewriter getting something compelling from the AI.
No, you've failed to understand what I'm saying entirely (because, again, you've responded to some other post that only exists in your mind).
What I'm talking about is intention and its relationship to meaning, in the philosophical sense (and not... copyright or whatever it is you're rambling on about).
Witness: when ChatGPT famously mis-asserts the number of characters in a word (say, that there are twelve characters in the word "thirteen"), it's not that it's trying and failing to count, because it's confused by letter forms or its attention wanders like a 3 year old or its internal representation of countable sets glitches around the number 8 or something – it never counted anything at all, it's simply the case that twelve is the most statistically likely set of tokens corresponding to that input prompt per its training set. And when it produces a factually correct result (say, "there are 81 words in the first sentence of the declaration of independence"), it produces it for exactly the same reason – not because it has counted the words and formed an internal representation and intends to mean its internal understanding, but simply because 81 is the most statistically likely set of tokens corresponding to that prompt per its training set.
And yet when it produces these correct results, people ooh and aah over how "smart" it is, how much it has "understood", how "good it is at counting; better than my son!", and when it produces incorrect results people deride it as dumb and so forth, and and all of this, all of this, is pareidolia; it is neither smart in the one case nor dumb in the other, it does not learn in the sense the word is normally used, it does no counting. We're anthropomorphizing an algorithm that is doing nothing like what we imagine it to do, because we mistake the statistical order in its expressions for the presence of a meaning intended by those expressions. It's all projection on our end.
The original discussion was precisely an objection to the attitude underlying "How is *GPT taking in data and producing an output different than a human learning a skill and making prose/code/art?" and the answer is right in your premise - not everything a human does is not profound. A human can intend to mean something with prose or art, even if not all prose or art means something — but any meaning we see in ChatGPT’s output is essentially pareidolia.
It seems almost definitionally obvious that what an LLM does is not the same as what a human does – both on the basis that if all human writing were merely done via blending together other writing we had seen in the past, it would appear to be impossible for us to have developed written communication in the first place, and on the basis that when I write something, I mean something I am then attempting to communicate. An LLM never means to communicate anything, there is no there there; it simply reproduces the most likely tokens in response to a prompt.
To insist that we're just a bunch of walking, breathing prompt-reproducers essentially seems like it's rooted in a belief that we have no interior lives, and that meaning in writing or art is utterly illusory.
You've also not addressed the more fundamental question of why an LLM would even be good for this.
And if it is, what stops Google from just ... incorporating an LLM into their existing search offering instead of having their lunch eaten by this hypothetical IndexGPT? It's not like Google lacks expertise in LLMs.
> The Social Security office may approve your request for reinstatement. If your request is approved, your temporary benefits start the month following the month in which you made your request. Temporary benefits can last up to six months.
So: it’s not instant. It’s not immediate. And it risks losing the benefits altogether if they mistake a one-time contract for something he could sustain indefinitely.
I can’t off the top of my head think of any CPU that’s ever supported running different DDR standards side-by-side simultaneously (there were some dual DDR2/DDR3 boards back in the day, but it was an either/or proposition).
Well, that and the ability to use LPDDR5 in the first place. There’s no such thing as a pluggable LPDDR5 stick; the design decisions around low voltages & high signaling rates make it physically impractical to survive the longer traces and discontinuities involved in the signal traversing a connector.
That’s why it shrinks the apparent visual scale of the hotel, which has twice as many floors and twice as many rooms per floor as it seems from the “window” frames outside.
Well, the evidence is that mass layoffs aren't having the result of being very positive for companies that engage in them.
Given that what you say also feels true, in my experience, an explanation immediately suggests itself:
Big companies rarely if ever manage to mass lay off only unproductive staff, or net-drain internal orgs. Rather, they're almost always implemented as an across-board X% haircut for most departments with little targeting whatsoever. So in the end, they don't solve the problem you're identifying, and that's why the evidence says they end up doing nothing positive for the company.