pffft8888

9 ms·

31.
by pffft8888 4y ago
You're still not answering the question of how you feel about Altman taking the money for a noble mission of Open AI then using that money and turning it into a Closed for-profit. If that's not bait and switch then you are being b
32.
by pffft8888 4y ago
I was just talking about this the other day: > it's more hacking than crareful and well specified engineering, and that could lead down a path of instability in the product where some features get better while others get worse, with
33.
by pffft8888 4y ago
@SideQuark, you are lost in your head. Where are you feelings about the matter? Are you ok with the bait-and-switch of starting a non-profit, taking $100M and then switch to a for-profit that has the complete opposite agenda to the non-prof
34.
by pffft8888 4y ago
People are nuts to be focusing on the mundane and not on the fact that he went from $100M to promote Open Transparent AI Research to taking that $100M building expertise and tech and running off with a private for-profit dedicated to CLOSED
35.
by pffft8888 4y ago
He called it Open AI. He did want it to be open, at least at the time of its founding, which is why he called it "Open" AI.
36.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Legal and Ethical are completely different things in the modern Western mindset, so enjoy your legal existence ...
37.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Musk is not in the clear. I was talking about the principle of someone funding your non-profit to do good in the world like Open and Transparent AI research and you turning it into a non-profit after using the donated funds to build the tec
38.
by pffft8888 4y ago
No, you must not take money for a non-profit to support Open & Transparent AI research and then turn it into a for-profit (he could have just refused to sell, end of story) and make it about Closed Non-Transparent AI and start calling f
39.
by pffft8888 4y ago
The point is Elon wanted to be Open. Altman made it Closed and on top of that applied a neoliberal alignment to the output of ChatGPT. I still have a copy of some horrific things ChatGPT has said despite admitting to the existence of eviden
40.
by pffft8888 4y ago
It is morally disgusting and if Delaware General Business Law allows it that does not make it lawful in other jurisdictions.
41.
by pffft8888 4y ago
$5 and $100M are completely different things. I recommend reading "More Is Different" ...
42.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Is this the same as or similar to the Lottery Ticket concept from a few years ago?
43.
by pffft8888 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281026
44.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Is it attention free?
45.
by pffft8888 4y ago
That's a bit defeatest, don't you think? OpenAI is not the end all and be all, and projects like this will only inspire more challengers. OpenAI copying this architecture will delegitimize them as hardcore innovators, whom they&#x
46.
by pffft8888 4y ago
No, but I think an AI is going to be Them, by default, not Her. for a while, until we figure out if there is a neurological basis for gender, and if so, how to mimic it.
47.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Elon, not me, made it sound like that. Let's not distract from the core argument though... took money in for non-profit for transparency in AI research and turned around and made it for profit and super anti-transparent. But that'
48.
by pffft8888 4y ago
It is but the way hype works is that it goes with capital. The $100M from Elon (which he has since regreted) that got OpenAI started, and the $29B from Microsoft that's fueling their growth, means that even a full on AGI has no chance
49.
by pffft8888 4y ago
I always think of FGPAs for things you want to update without having to repurchase the hardware. If the FPGA inside a gadget can be reprogrammed over the Internet then I think it's more suited than an ASIC for LLMs.
50.
by pffft8888 4y ago
from the source: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830104144183298 "31. After the 2020 election, when EIP was renamed the Virality Project, the Stanford lab was on-boarded to Twitter’s JIRA ticketing sy
51.
by pffft8888 4y ago
"It’s crucial to reiterate: EIP was partnered with state entities like CISA and GEC while seeking elimination of millions of tweets. In the #Twitter Files, Twitter execs did not distinguish between organizations, using phrases like ‘Ac
52.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Imagine having ChatGPT level AI running in an ASIC inside earphones. This could be like an always-on buddy, available offline and able to access resources when you're connected. Or in Google Glasses. The Readme states that it's mo
53.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Down voting without rebuttal does not add value.. I don't get if you disagree or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. It's noise, not signal. Grow up.
54.
by pffft8888 4y ago
In addition, 1) it's open source. 2) you can run it yourself so the rug won't be pulled from under you when they decide to shutdown and move users up to the next version or another product as they've done with the older text-
55.
by pffft8888 4y ago
"you can fine-tune RWKV into a non-parallelizable RNN (then you can use outputs of later layers of the previous token) if you want extra performance." Is that 61% using the non-parallelizable RNN mode or the standard mode? I wonde
56.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Wolfram/GPT integration is missing a huge opportunity: allowing Alpha to tell ChatGPT the algorithm by which it computes the answer. That would allow ChatGPT to create say Python code that solve
57.
by pffft8888 4y ago
What test cases do folks here recommend for measuring this new model's ability to reason? and, specifically, if it can reason about code with similar (or better!) performance to ChatGPT4? Has anyone managed to get it running locally?
58.
RWKV RNN: Better than ChatGPT?(github.com)
328 points by pffft8888 4y ago|107 comments
59.
by pffft8888 4y ago
Yes but how will they do that if they don't have a clear understanding. When we build software, we have (or should have) a clear understanding of the various components and, in some cases, like with distributed and mission-critical&#x2
60.
by pffft8888 4y ago
In this sense, it's more hacking than crareful and well specified engineering, and that could lead down a path of instability in the product where some features get better while others get worse, without understanding exactly why.

More ›