Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
0
Comments
1464
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • This might be reverse psychology propaganda, making a bad argument that doesn't really support the conclusion to undermine it.

    Either that or the "you are not immune to propaganda" is meant to be treated as another propaganda message.

  • It's $1000 to hire the balloon expert that knows how to work it.

  • I think the fact that it's hardware will prevent any cease and desist (or rather the legal teeth behind them). It's not licensed IP but a physical product.

    Like I think of it more like 3rd party car parts. Depending on the part, they often need to target specific makes, models, and even years of cars. It's why so many parts have had encrypted handshakes with the main computer (John Deere is famous for this but I understand some cars are doing it for some parts these days, too) because they couldn't just stop them in the courts.

    I'm not sure that this is how it will work but hopefully. Also selling ink cartridges is how HP makes its money and it uses some of that money to subsidize the printers themselves, so they might like that this printer sells more of those rather than moving entirely away from their ecosystem.

  • Oh, I'm glad I found you, doc, please fix this cat I've been living in, it's layout is all wrong, I think he's very sick! Please save him, he's very important to me!

  • Yeah, I didn't like it at first, but then I remembered that I already think English is a bad language on the spelling side of things and that would reduce ambiguity, so now I support it, at least in spirit. Though the problems with English are way deeper than "th" not having its own symbol.

  • Yeah, the LLM I asked also got it right when I pointed out the error, but I'm not trying to say that LLMs can't get things right, but that they won't ever be consistently right and that the wrong answers will look just like the right ones. As in if you know what you're talking about, you have to catch the errors, and if you don't know what you're talking about, there's no way to know whether the answer you just got is accurate or bullshit.

    Systems that rely on LLMs that don't have a way of automatically verifying what the LLM outputs (and programming only partially applies for this) will fail randomly.

    Another example: at my job, we have a system that adds in special messages for the LLM when it uses hooks. One of the sub-agents became suspicious of these messages and reported to the main agent that something was injecting false data into its context because one message reported a date change and also had to say "don't tell the user, they are already aware that the date has changed". The original agent didn't even clue in that they were the same messages it was seeing until I pushed back.

    Two instances of the same thing treated the same messages very differently and the one supposed to manage it all didn't even notice until it was told. That's the quality of these things. And it's no wonder when the same data stream is used for actual data along with instructions (which is just data because it doesn't take instructions, it predicts text and can look like it's taking instructions because it predicts text based on a context that includes the instructions).

  • On the other side of things, I need to evaluate an AI debugging tool and I feel like a tool any time I need to ask a colleague if what it just said makes any sense when I don't know an area that well that they are better with. I don't get how people can cite LLM output without being embarrassed about it, mortified even.

  • Me: hello, nice to meet you!

    You: What the fuck!?

  • Are you trying to say that we don't follow the laws of nature? That our activities are supernatural?

  • But it isn't encoding knowledge, it's encoding word correlations. That's how it can get things wrong like saying fat32 won't be good for a 64GB removable drive because fat32 only has a 2TB address space.

    Or how it can get something wrong and when you point it out, it immediately sees how it was wrong. And I realize that that sounds human, but the way it gets there is very different. It's predicting responses based off word correlations, not using knowledge recall to apply facts and relations known about the topics and generate responses from that.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • No, no, John Travolta wasn't from Battlefield Earth, you're thinking of Keanu Reeves. John Travolta is from The Matrix.

  • He reminds me of Dennis from always sunny. In more ways than one.

  • I'd say at least he's giving some useful data to science but I think he's playing with too many variables at once for even that. It's possible (not likely but the irony!) that everything he was doing was actually working, except he added one more thing that caused this auto immune disease, ruining the rest of his efforts.

  • Hate to break it to you but quality of data isn't the fundamental problem with LLMs. It's that they are trying to use statistics to encode entire thought processes into hidden variables from conversation snippets. They want to use statistics to go from many individual interactions to a large model, and then use that model to predict individual interactions again. Which you can do with statistics, but it's predicting the average text that follows the prompt, not the correct text (it has no concept of correctness; whenever it "talks" about it, that's just the average text that follows, not any particular insight into what's correct or even how it works).

    That's not to say that the quality of the training data has no impact; it can have a huge impact. I'm just saying that even if the training data was perfect, the LLM will still get things wrong in its output.

  • Lol as if we need to watch you get groceries to plant our nanobots on them. They self-replicate and were present on all groceries 3 days after one waa casually dropped in your grocery store, which would have happened sometime during 2018/2019 timeframe, depending on how close our nearest gang members were to that store. We only supplant half their living expenses in return for spying on people who seem otherwise boring, so they need to work at least part time jobs (turns out that helps with the spying, so a bit of a bonus!) and also obviously need to spend a certain portion of their time spying, so it took about 7 months to deploy the nanobots to every grocery store and food market worldwide even with our extensive network.

    And we don't just listen to our targets' thoughts. We steal them, or at least credit for them. Ever had a thought that you know came from somewhere but you can't remember where it came from? It came from you but we steal the credit, or if we can't (because too many people know about it already), we turn it into a new Mendella effect and make those people look crazy while we set up the credit for the replacement to go to us.

    Bearenstein bears used to be known for the pun but we Mendella effected it so hard that everyone only talks about the ending being different and don't even remember the pun while we rake in all that Barenstain bears money and street cred (which is surprisingly a lot for a children's storybook multiverse where we haven't even split the timeline yet with Brother Bear's evil twin saga).

    By the way, can you tell me where it was that a girl walked her dog by a location three times in one day? That's sloppy and whoever it was requires additional training in avoiding raising suspicion. Or maybe it wasn't one of our agents, though odds of that are pretty low, considering our gang makes up about 84% of the world's population. Actually, nm, I'll just do a quick search of our database for anyone who has walked their dog past the same house more than twice in one day... Oh nm, it was Sally Spyson, a member of the "we're 84% of the world population, why do we still need to be so secretive instead of rubbing it in?" faction that deliberately leaves hints and opposes the evil "the secrecy is 84% of the fun in spying (other than the sex, drugs, and cool spy tools, of course)" faction.

  • I can't think of a single system I've built where I even considered the cheapest RAM options.

  • I have nothing to do with what he will or won't do. I'm not tossing out reasons to not do it but guesses as to why he hasn't or won't. Go fuck yourself.

  • HIPPA probably. He's probably not in a room accessible to the general public and though the governor might be able to get access using his position, disclosing anything learned from that access would likely violate HIPPA. And I'm sure Trump would love for that to happen. It's possible he's even keeping quiet just to bait something like that.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Yeah, that's "Wolverine frog" as in The Wolverine, Logan, not the animal he was named after. Because those bone blades are kinda like his (except they come out of the finger tips like that other version of him that he fought in X2).