315 karma · joined November 13, 2007
Free Software types also create software...they didn't just argue for a better license and try to regulate Sun/others to re-license their software; they wrote free (libre) versions of proprietary software and released it for free (cost), which is what counteracted the "[putting] what they make behind a wall". If you're saying "[some] LLMs should be free", I agree.
(non-snark: your reply is clever and got a smile but I still think the GP post is overriding: no need for the distraction (c.f.: these asides) of the "S(c)am" swipe)
The Tiananmen Square killings happened independent of one's "worldview".
What's an example of "the exact same thing" done to OpenAI models by western governments?
Are you doing this with vLLM, or some other model-running library/setup?
Sounds interesting; can you suggest any good discussions of this (on the web)?
What are some examples? (curious, as a westerner)
Are there "bias" benchmarks? (I ask, rather than just search, because: bias)
When the tool isn't polarized. I wouldn't use a wrench with an objectionable symbol on it.
> You don't forecast weather with image detection model
What do you do with a large language model? I think most people put language in and get language out. Plenty of people are going to look askance at statements like "the devil is really good at coding, so let's use him for that only". Do you think it should be illegal/not allowed to not hire a person because they have political beliefs you don't like?
It's completely valid, IMO. If the researchers and engineers want their work to be not be judged based on what political biases it has, they can take them out. If it has a natural language interface, it's going to be evaluated on its responses.
This always gets me...is there not a public bug report for this one?
What are some?
> * CONNECT
> * USAGE
> * SELECT
Isn't LOGIN (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/role-attributes.html) also needed?
Only roles that have the LOGIN attribute can be used as the initial role name for a database connectionThat's quite far from what the author of the book you're discussing wrote:
> [this book/course] is also supposed to be a first course introducing a student to rigorous proof, formal definitions
It seems like the opposite is true:
"It is intended for a student who, while not yet very familiar with abstract reasoning, is willing to study more [than a] "cookbook style" calculus type course."
(from the link).
If your point is one can't learn linear algebra before learning "abstract [mathematical] reasoning"...don't think you're the main target audience of a subject as practical as linear algebra.
I see your point: has almost nothing correctness with rigour do to Syntax.
Syntax rigor has to do with correctness to the extent that "correctness" exists outside the mind of the creator. Einstein notation is a decent example: the rigor is inherent in the definition of the syntax, but to a novice, it is entirely under-specified and can't be said to be "correct" without its definition being incorporated already...which is the ultimate-parent-posts' point and I think the context in which the post-to-which-you're-replying needs to be taken.
And if you're going to argue "This is just wrong?" (I love the passive-aggressive '?'?) while ignoring the context of the discussion...QED.