to add to that I've heard a lot of people who have things like ADHD saying LLM's are life changing more than say neurotypical people. For those of us with bad ADHD doing simple things are the hardest, just taking out the trash or opening the mail is nearly impossible, your internal dialog is screaming at you for hours to just do the thing, but your body won't listen. They call it executive dysfunction, but it's the bane of my life
LLM's helping to just start the thing is actually a huge deal.
I figure AGI will need a lot of parts to it, the same way our brain does, but having the language part figured out is I would guess is about 1/4 of what we need to solve to get there. So it's not AGI, but I would say it's a big chunk of what we need to get to AGI.
Could this perhaps fall under something like trademark, like an unauthorized use of self, I'm sure I've heard of some celebrity cases that were for similar.
Have to second this, it's rare for an applications UX to piss me off enough to start looking into modding it or creating a fork but blender is at the top of that list.
Just having a better way to customize hotkeys would go really far, and I want to my mouse and movement controls to be roughly the same as unreal engine. Until those two things happen I use blender but I'm always angry when I do.
that's a gross oversimplification and an argument that was made in bad faith that has now spread like a meme.
The gist was if you overtrain a model, and try to recreate an exact image by prompting very similar things, and run it several thousand times, then you can recreate an image. If you seriously crank up the overtraining it's even easier. But normal use of the models do not just pump out recreations of training data.
Honestly probably not that hard, could train a model/lora with about 30 images, so gather more than 30 good looking icons, train a model and then take the time to prompt and generate all the icons you need. Then do touchups in gimp/photoshop.
At most would take me a week or so to do I think, more likely less than a day.
I forget the term for it but there is a thing in anime subgenres where something comes out that is a kid of rejection/critique of the previous genre and acts as a kind of pseudo parody that afterwards sets a new direction and redefines the genre. Often these are hard to understand unless one is already familiar with the trends and tropes that it is critiquing. A good example is neon genesis evangelion, it's a critism of the mecha subgenre that came before it, but changed the way the mecha subgenre was afterwards. I'm told hunter x hunter is the same kind of redefining pseudo parody with the battle shonen genre, but I'm less familiar with that.
I feel like snow crash it's kinda along those lines.
I also don't think nintendo should be granted the patents it is seeking, other games have done similar enough before that it feels wrong to give it to the bigger company because they asked.
I bet that if they really wanted to try to maintain what they have while not basing it on race specifically they could just base it on zip code or poverty metrics and still predict race correctly about 80-90% of the time.
I'm not sure places like harvard want rich families to not be able to game the system, in some ways I think that's why they exist. I think rather it's closer to how pay-to-win mechanics work in games, if people can realistically earn what was paid for many will confuse their spending for skill, if it can only realistically be achieved via payment then it becomes a thing to mock because the only way it translates to success was by opening the wallet and there is no skill to be praised. By making an ambigious merit based system that can also be gamed by the wealthy it makes the wealthy seem they are entering due to merit rather than wealth, thus making it praisworthy while also meeting the needs of the wealthy, and in many ways I think that's the real point of most colleges.
There is an argument about the open source models causing more innovation and thus more industry and/or competetive advantage of a nation. So I can't imagine that control is the only thing they are thinking about, though surely they are thinking about control.
I want to say I read a few years back some scientists were studying the possibility of using phages to fight super bacteria, apparently can evolve to be either phage resistant or antibiotic resistant but never both, or at least that was the gist of it I can remember.
I believe the problem is that it's expected of a developing nation, but once a nation is considered developed it's looked down on. Similar to a person acting childish when an adult. China want's to have their cake and eat it too in almost everything, it's "look how powerful we are, how strong our economy", until it's time to respect patents then it's "no we are still developing, you can't hold that against us".
Honestly it would be hard to touch on without insulting large swaths of society. Just thinking about my own friend and family circle the way a college aged woman is treated is vastly different, even just by parents. For example my sister (22) still lives at home, drives the family car, stepdad pays for her fuel, mom pays for food, is on the family cell plan, has basicaly 0 expenses except wanting to eat out. My brothers and I were expected to leave nearly right away, were not still on cell plan, and never had access to any of those other percs. I wouldn't be shocked if this played a large role into the why women are accessing higher education more today, because they financially can, because of their support systems, which many men don't have. Juggling a job to survive and scrape by while also going to school is although maybe possible, absolutely miserable at the same time, I can't imagine anyone pulling it off without hitting some kind of burnout after a few years of it.
In truth 16% is much lower than I would have expected, expected it upwards of 50%.
I once had a debate with a friend about whether it was ethical to hire someone based on looks, because looks were something mostly inherent to the person and not earned (how well you take care of it and fitness withstanding), and he argued that it was just as ethical or even more so than hiring for intelligence which is just as inherent, but offers similar types of advantages. I've been more open minded about it since, more of the opinion of "use the pretty person to be a front/face" almost along the lines of "put the right person in the right position".
What I've heard from those I've talked to who have open sourced things successfully, they always talk about open sourcing things that work like plumbing or are foundational to what you do, but keeping the core of what you do yours.
I feel a similar inclination toward premade solutions, if something is the very core of your business or is the primary differentiator of your business then building a custom solution or creating an internal department is appropriate, if it isn't then buying a solution or using other people's software is usually the better choice.
> A human "learning" the marvel logo and reproducing it is violation
Not quite, it's really in the resale or redistribution that violation occurs, painting an image of the hulk to hang in your living room wouldn't really be a violation, selling that painting could be, turning it into merch and selling that would wholeheartedly be, trying to pass it off as official merch is without question a violation.
Sounds similar to Hawthorne effect to me, where they sudied office workers on how they reacted to dimming or raising the lights and both caused upward productivity but it was because the workers realised they were being watched not because the lighting caused changes.
Neither the hiring or the firing necissarily make the company more efficient but maybe being watched and knowing they are being watched does.
First time I just go so nervous I coulnd't think at all, and what should have been an hours long thing was broght to a close with him saying "well I know all I need to know" and my heart sank.
At this stage I just assume most AI laws being passed are red flag laws similar to how when cars were new places passed laws about people having to walk and to wave flags ahead of cars to warn that a car was coming.
In 20 years most of those laws coming into being now will likely be looked at as ridiculous.
as I understood it the whole thing with pilgrim's natives and turkey never happened and that thanksgiving was a post civil war holiday that somehow turned into that.
I don't think search is bad because the tech can't do it, I think it's bad because they are maximizing profit from advertising and because SEO got gamed by marketer's too hard.
I lived there for a while twice, not much in the burbs either, but there was a lot to like as far as music, bars and interesting food. But yeah, getting around wasn't convenient, all of texas is like that, first time I visited I was like "why are there so many toll roads?" plus the frontage roads feel like a carryover from when the population was 1/5 what it is now, the whole city feels like a failure of city planning, but especially the roads.
Just to second this, the natural bias of data is usually mostly inline with the bias of society at large, so even if it's something we need to fix, manipulating the data maybe isn't the way to start, maybe it should instead be "let's get more data of what's missing to balance it" rather than "let's prune this because it doesn't fit inline with current political beliefs"
I think 2.0 has potential still, it works with textual inversion type models much better, which can kinda play nice with each other, so given enough of those I imagine you can get some cool stuff with it. I've also heard it does negative prompts much better, so those are less optional in 2.0
But yeah for now, all my custom models are 1.5 so I've yet to fully upgrade yet, most of the community seems to be doing similar at the moment.