willy_k

Sure, if you take a materialist empiricist perspective, which is myopic at best. As humans we have the unique and wonderful ability to know truths by themselves. Machines do not have minds, and they can not.

Doing that on modern iOS is unlikely. They’ve really locked it down in the past half decade.

Thats a browser level task.

That doesn’t mean anything. “Sometimes satellites hit things or have problems and blow up. Maybe it hit something and had a problem”.

Edit: Its a perfectly valid response to the question that was asked.

So, if you are concerned about what the model does? Yeah.

For the old school (I hate that that’s arguably applicable) AI dating types, and so on. The people using it not for productivity.

So what is he? A Democrat, and what else? Parties are groups of people, ideologies are pure ideals. They are distinct, with overlaps in their demographics.

Response to sister comment: conservatism, and the groups that claim to support it, are separate. Same with liberals, and socialists, and the Democrat Party.

And “they” would arguably cease to exist.

I can’t read apparently, apologies

As an aside - the word conspiratorial has become polluted.

If you accept the premise that governments and their military and intelligence agencies aren’t 100% transparent, which is true, then the above comment is simply speculative.

Good example of their point. That’s not “why”.

Might wanna update your facts on that pipeline.

This could get pretty pedantic. They haven’t “won” yet, and the first few paragraphs do accurately describe the problem, but not the whole state of the case. The injunctions and appeals are very important, but they are details of the suit proceedings, not the case itself.

Yes. And/or press charges, IIRC. They did threaten to, at one point, with some conditions they wanted met (past that, I am not in the loop).

Inb4 Apple buys OAI in 10 years and gets 75% of the consumer market.

Also, reality is not a work of fiction. Look for concrete reasons in things, not themes and allusions. Anthropic is used because they have a good product, it’s easy.

Its a grossly incomplete description. A reductive description.

Wait I’m sorry, I’m all for suspecting US involvement in foreign countries because its probably happening, but what are you saying exactly? “The democrats” have had marginal if any power for two years. Any fuckling going on involves POTUS.

We can totally avoid (being conscious of) processing stuff during sleep too. Just take some SSRIs or smoke weed and you wake up in the next day. I think that that has more effect on people than people realize, dreaming is important but many people don’t experience that side of things any more.

> To me, I think these folks see that the music is getting harder to hear and might stop entirely

At the frontier companies, but not for hugging face or nvidia. Their business are going to be around for a while considering how local models are performing now.

> I would buy it and it was fun to do recreationally which supposedly means you don't have ADHD.

That’s something some people with ADHD need to hear to be ok with taking what is a powerful drug. A comorbidity of ADHD is substance abuse, and stimulants are very rewarding neuobiologically speaking (because they, especially amphetamine, promote dopamine release and persistence in the reward areas near the brainstem, as opposed to non-stimulants like Strattera which does effect dopamine reuptake but only in the prefrontal cortex, the primary area of impairment in ADHD [it does this by exploiting the fact that the NET is used for Dopamine reuptake exclusively in the PFC]), especially when treated like a recreational substance to be taken freely in a dose designed to be fun.

There is a lot of variety in people with ADHD, but I think that perception is more due to how the drugs work when taken medicinally vs recreationally and individual propensity for abuse.

NVIDIA is a lot more than a “lab”.

Because deleting model weights after training is likely to cause knock-on effects in model knowledge and/or behavior. Targetting it might mitigate this but it’s

a) not guaranteed that only censor-ey parameters get removed, and b) likely that removing those parameters still has effects on the effectiveness of related parameters.

> knowingly

Intent or negligence.

My understanding is that the current effort settings is a part of the system prompt, and that the levels and their intended results are a part pf the training process. The effect is more or less tokens spent reasoning before the model outputs a stop token. However it is as consistent as any other aspect of LLM behavior is..

IIRC responding to effort level settings appropriately is part of the (post)-training. In that case it could be considered another instance of the Bitter Lesson. Uplifting.

Is there a specific book from 40 years ago you have in mind? Asking out of curiosity.

Which is an opinionated rephrasing of the question whether ends justify the means. It’s not clear cut.

Not a direct response to your question; I figure you or others reading this may be interested in the thoughts of the host of The War on Beauty (best found on youtube).