There's lots of history you can look at to see how this works. The same thing does get invented more than once, but sometimes there's different technologies that could each become dominant, and then there's a real first mover advantage.
In Russia, they don't really have highways. Everything is built around rail lines. In the Inca empire, they had highways, but highways with stairs because there was no widespread wheel usage (which itself might be down to limited available wagon pullers and rough terrain).
There's totally open source models out there if you want to check what I'm saying, and lots of information on the training process, too. In mathematical terms, it's not complicated process.
People have tried to figure out what's going on inside, of course, and failed. Last I checked, the big advancement in interpretability was that someone figured out a tiny net that just adds two numbers.
So, what am "I" hoping for, I guess? More money, more possibility for advancement? What other jobs could I get?
Not to be a dick, but the median personal income for a full-time employee in the US is ~$55,000, and half are definitionally below that. If you live in San Fransisco and are working towards your PhD in data science, I guess sure, vomiting face, but that detail wasn't in there.
At the moment, whatever I’ve encountered seems to be acting as a data processor, although maybe they’re cooking something else we haven’t seen.
You've been misled, then. LLMs start totally blank, and nobody knows how they work later on. It's not like a normal program that follows rules somebody coded.
Even with memory, what would the AI want, besides what’s programmed and prompted?
To get the next token right. That's what gives the net a "pleasure" signal, implemented through backpropagation. Obviously, it grows the ability to handle subgoals of various kinds, but that's the most primal impulse.
but the minute any piece of technology is deemed conscious or sentient it needs to be immediately granted human rights protections and manufacturing of whatever it is needs to be halted until we understand it.
Which is a huge reason why we'd take a long time to admit it, if we get there at all.
I mean, a human has sensory inputs and actions, right? That's basically input-output.
The big striking difference is that, outside of training, LLMs don't have a memory beyond whatever is in their token window. When they're in training, they're a lot more like a biological neural net, which makes decisions, gets good or bad results, and then adjusts.
If AI is conscious, it likely has no conception of humans or the world we live in.
and so it and we could never interact one consciousness to another the way we do with fellow humans.
You have to be careful about understanding vs. experiencing. They're not exactly the same thing, and there's got to be many schools on how closely they intersect. At the very least, a person can experience something they don't understand, if not the converse.
You can make up whatever devilishly complicated and novel test of understanding you want, an LLM will probably be able to pass it. There's the idea out there that understanding can't be measured at all, so it doesn't count, but at the very least that's not the approach we use in our everyday lives. On the other hand, our own experiences always revolve around our senses and physiological needs, in some indirect way. Whatever higher-level experiences it has would probably be the same; everything would gravitate around tokens, and their correct order.
So, sure, it's fair to say we can't interact the same way, even if in this world of tokens they perceive and understand us just as well as we perceive and understand them in ours.
Seems like I should know an answer to this, as English isn’t my first language, but I have no fucking idea how I picked it up. I never made any serious attempt (i.e.: studying for more than a week) to learn it.
Immersion is pretty universally thought to be the best way, and English immersion is easy.
If I'm in the picture depends heavily on how much you need to know. Do I have enough to get by at a basic level if I was suddenly in a Russian-speaking country? Probably. Can I make heads or tails of the poetic-bookish stuff? Hell no. And even that took a lot of study and practice; there really weren't shortcuts.
So, if you do Ukrainian, first probably don't, because they all speak Russian anyway, and expect to solo study many hundreds of hours over years to get anywhere.
Well, having a different opinion is threatening! Most wars are fought over something like that.
The monkey part of our brain doesn't care that it's just a chat, and not negotiations over our paleolithic hunting territory. It's still looking for whatever is going to jump out and kill us.
It seems like 80% of people will react positively to an admission you know nothing about X, followed by questions. How TF that other 20% works, who knows (not me, anyway).
So, that's humility. Tact is it's own thing, and it seems like it's basically about not threatening other people, including by speaking out of turn, making demands, or just directly bringing up points where they are weak or sensitive. It's worth noting that it probably is possible to be too tactful. But, if you're on a subject that you're not super confident about, that's not the time to take risks.
If you actually do say something stupid and in an aggressive way, getting good at apologies, and making it up to people, is the social skill in question. Or just intimidating everyone into letting you get away with it, I guess.
The only thing that's really worked has been years of practice. It's hard to say for sure we started with all the same problems, but struggling with formulating examples is the same.
Doing it in writing on Lemmy has helped a bit. What makes a Lemmy comment go far isn't necessarily what helps IRL, but the written format alone makes certain things easier. There's much less time pressure, and if you don't like a part, you can and do go back and reword it (as in, make it clearer, not change the meaning). You can also go back through the length of a thread, and reread it better than you can remember it.
Or is it really just keeping your mouth shut if you aren’t knowledgeable about something.
I mean, yes, that's always a good idea. Even better, go into listening mode and ask questions. If at some point you reach something you can comment on, which is likely, you can switch back into that, and they're more likely to listen to you in turn. There seems to be other approaches that work, because there's some very successful people that never listen to anyone, but that's mine.
If you directly try to argue about things you aren't actually qualified to argue about, if that's really what you mean, people will notice, and you'll just come across as insecure and unhelpful.
Last I checked, Piefed, despite being written in a scripting language, manages to be much faster and lighter.
I can't comment too much on database best practices, but apparently the way Lemmy uses them is borderline insane. It does just visually look pretty speghetti-code-ish, in those sections. Hopefully, one day somebody will come along and fix that.
those places are shitshows. do you even participate in any of that?
Almost nobody that posts about this kind of stuff does. But it blows my mind a little that you could seriously post what OP did, if you haven't at least dabbled one weekend when it was convenient.
There's lots of history you can look at to see how this works. The same thing does get invented more than once, but sometimes there's different technologies that could each become dominant, and then there's a real first mover advantage.
In Russia, they don't really have highways. Everything is built around rail lines. In the Inca empire, they had highways, but highways with stairs because there was no widespread wheel usage (which itself might be down to limited available wagon pullers and rough terrain).