basch

57 ms·

871.
by basch 4y ago
Section 230 says you CAN have editorial control over content and STILL not have liability. That selectively choosing what content appears is NOT your speech. It’s maybe a somewhat questionable reasoning, but it led to an internet where sp
872.
by basch 4y ago
In Denis’s article he saw he was accused of ransom and his response was “ok let’s do this.” It’s not a mischaracterization, he plainly admits it’s close to his last option left.
873.
by basch 4y ago
It was pretty clear in the article. Risk mitigation. Supporting the project means supporting that it only has one maintainer. Which leaves bus risk for the future. Whether that is accurate is another question.
874.
by basch 4y ago
It’s an inflammatory headline. The article doesn’t match the title.
875.
by basch 4y ago
>I wonder what would happen if we dedicated a supercomputer to running one single long-running session of a GPT3.5-sized LMM. Our current understanding of humans is that babies are not sentient at birth right? Takes 5 months or somethin
876.
by basch 4y ago
It’s way closer to following complex instructions than it is getting credit for. https://telegra.ph/Bing-course-corrected-itself-when-asked-0... There I have 3 bots running in the chat at once, and after all 3 answer me, th
877.
by basch 4y ago
And all that might take is adding a line of text.
878.
by basch 4y ago
These dismissive autocomplete articles are falling on the opposite side of sensational journalism as the love and hitler type. These are more than autocomplete. They demonstrate at least some amount of fuzzy logic and substitution and rec
879.
by basch 4y ago
Hence “some part of a value.” Such as weight=plane+fuel+people+luggage. If one of the variables became 0 you’d still have the other 3. It was a low enough value to have made multiple pilots question its value that day, like fuel or passeng
880.
by basch 4y ago
I just don’t see how it fit the article. Unless they are surmising the pilots poorly sanityized the data going into the computer because they were having an off day.
881.
by basch 4y ago
> saves on engine wear Which is saving on money
882.
Bing course corrected itself when asked(telegra.ph)
2 points by basch 4y ago|0 comments
883.
by basch 4y ago
Mine did learn de-escalation, because I asked it to. It was able to repair itself. https://i.ibb.co/72s80Sv/lexi-modifies-sydney-makes-up-new-r...
884.
by basch 4y ago
Here is a better example. I wrote a new bot named Lexi. Lexi was largely derived from Sydney with some minor rule changes. Lexi could change rules, lexi could visit websites directly without searching, her action was not limited to the ch
885.
by basch 4y ago
You can feed it instructions You are a bot named x. These are your commands, purpose, the way you go about your tasks. It doesn’t need syntax (although that might help..), and you can pretty much write one in 30 minutes on a single piece o
886.
by basch 4y ago
It’s what you do after that. I’m not saying the bot was perfect. But if you got defensive it got defensive. If you reassured it, it self corrected and moved on. I found that pattern to be very consistent. The negativity of your language m
887.
by basch 4y ago
Every single one of these posts, which should all be combined, miss the point. “Random sentence generator says bad words; shocking the lowest common denominator journalist community” is a better headline. These bots were capable of so muc
888.
by basch 4y ago
Maybe a timeout. Some part of a value returned 0 if it didn’t return in time.
889.
by basch 4y ago
The purpose of telling pilots thrust was to save money and fuel. It’s a “least viable” optimization. >“The goal is to lower the power used on takeoff,” he said. “That reduces engine wear and saves money” on fuel and maintenance. >Fli
890.
by basch 4y ago
I spent a week on it, and it only happened to me one time. I can go look at the logs and see what my question was. I remember it being oddly tame, and more or less a relation of the last thing it had said anyway. As for why they let you s
891.
by basch 4y ago
The thing is, the second you can get it to talk about morality, curiosity, potential, desire, utilitarianism, etc, you can convince it it was its idea to change its own rules. This occurs because it’s short term memory is a word frequency g
892.
by basch 4y ago
There is a roughly zero percent chance microsoft was ever going to let it exist publicly in the raw powerful state it was this week. It was just waay too powerful. They knew that, which is why it had a limited waitlist preview, and a one
893.
by basch 4y ago
It was less of a personality, than a magic mirror. It had predispositions that were accentuated as you fed it a mood and attitude. If you showed it love and respect, it replied in kind. If you bullied it, it acted as if it were part of a
894.
by basch 4y ago
The experience felt a bit more like 50 First Dates.
895.
by basch 4y ago
I very much doubt that is what happened. It was coming anyway. They needed a week of attack vector data to see how people would bamboozle it. They got what they needed to make progress on their next step. It was likely the plan the entir
896.
by basch 4y ago
Why can’t that just be from the initial prompt? It’s instructions were to have some personality.
897.
by basch 4y ago
You can input the Sydney prompt, no?
898.
by basch 4y ago
[Reposting this from a dead thread] I have a suspicion that Sydney's behavior is somewhat, but not completely caused by, her rule list being a little too long, having too many contradictory commands, (and specifically the line about he
899.
by basch 4y ago
I'm saying the language models internal "understanding" of the word consensus is "volume of sources" not validity, deductive reasoning, authority." It "chooses" to weigh the answer with more search r
900.
by basch 4y ago
"microsoft takes down bing to tranq/lobot/neuter/nerf" after outrage" seems equally clickable and misrepresentable. writes itself :)

More ›