stcg

Related: the great and timeless talk called "Simplicity Matters" by Rich Hickey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0

(By the way, any talk by Rich Hickey is worth watching)

It still happens, a fellow student and friend of mine got this response ('installed it for you') about two years ago at Radboud University Nijmegen after entering `sudo apt install nasm`

That's interesting, what language is that?

Also, is it possible to give a prompt to make ChatGPT switch to feminine gender?

I agree. Calling it a hash function feels off.

I do not expect a hash function's output to be used to 'reverse' to an approximation of the input (which is the primary use here). That being easy is even an unacceptable property for cryptographic hash functions, which to me are hash functions in the purest form.

I would rather call this extreme lossy compression.

In the short therm, I think it's very likely that companies (including smaller companies) integrating LLM's in their products want to locally run an open source LLM instead of relying on an external service, because it gives more independence and control.

Also, technical enthousiasts will run LLM's locally, like with image generation models.

In the long term, when smartphones are faster and open source LLM's are better (including more efficient), I can imagine LLM's running locally on smartphones.

'self-hosting', which I would define as hosting by individuals for own use or others based on social structures (friends/family/communities), like the hosting of internet forums, is quite small and it seems to shrink. So it seems unlikely that that form of hosting will become relevant for LLMs.

Watermarking [0] is a better solution. It still works after changes made to the generated output, and anyone can independently check for a watermark. Computerphile did a video on it [1].

But of course, watermarking or checksums stop working once the general public runs LLMs on personal computers. And it's only a matter of time before that happens.

So in the long run, we have three options:

1. take away control from the users over their personal computers with 'AI DRM' (I strongly oppose this option), or

2. legislate: legally require a disclosure for each text on how it was created, or

3. stop assuming that texts are written by humans, and accept that often we will not know how it was created

[0]: Kirchenbauer, J., Geiping, J., Wen, Y., Katz, J., Miers, I., & Goldstein, T. (2023). A watermark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10226. Online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226.pdf

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78

In Dutch I would say 'zeurkous' (literally translated 'whiny stocking') meaning something like 'grouch'

> Do vim users know if there was anything like Select next occurrence in vim?

You can press '*' in normal mode to search for the word under the cursor.

> Some anti-pattern examples are C++ and Vulcan.

Are you referring to the Vulkan API? If so, why do you see it as an anti-pattern example?

I like the API and I think it is a great and necessary improvement over OpenGL. I actually hope to see Vulkan become the ‘stable open source standard solution’ for graphics.