thomashop

11 ms·

61.
by thomashop 2y ago
Have you tried it? It is very good at explaining and commenting code — better than my comments.
62.
by thomashop 2y ago
You have trained a conversational model that can use tools with only 10,000 neurons? That is phenomenal. GPT-2 needed around 500,000 neurons and couldn't use tools.
63.
by thomashop 2y ago
You're making assumptions. I'm not working with the shovel I use to increase my productivity. Why would someone selling fridges be motivated to exaggerate the value of stoves? I'm not selling anything as Pollinations.AI is op
64.
by thomashop 2y ago
I'm pretty sure we are looking at something like 12 months. Not 5-10 years. Pixart and this paper are good data points. Another even just 50x reduction in cost will make it possible on consumer hardware easily. This paper already claim
65.
by thomashop 2y ago
The added value has not been marginal in my life. I'm paying for a few subscriptions to AI services. They make me significantly more productive in various ways. It is possible to quantify.
66.
by thomashop 2y ago
```We release MINT-1T under a CC-BY-4.0 license, designating it primarily as a research artifact. While the dataset is freely available, users are responsible for ensuring its legal use in commercial settings. Users must independently veri
67.
by thomashop 2y ago
I've seen automated AI agents that can spend time reflecting on themselves in a feedback loop. The model alters its state over time and can call APIs. You could equate saying something "aloud" to calling an API.
68.
by thomashop 2y ago
Like any tool, you need to learn how to use it and iterate with it. Trying it once is not enough.
69.
by thomashop 2y ago
Nitpick: How can there be less than 0% chance?
70.
by thomashop 2y ago
You're reading it right. They have developed a system that automatically decides which model is sufficient, depending on your inputs, saving you costs even within one conversation stream. The OpenAI-compatible API allows you to talk to
71.
by thomashop 2y ago
> However, there is only one kind of noise that is noise for everyone: literal noise. I feel like you're a bit too literal here. When people talk about noise it doesn't mean mathematically pure noise. A signal-to-noise ratio cl
72.
by thomashop 2y ago
I never did. Had to pay fines.
73.
by thomashop 2y ago
Yes because without an LLM I don't do it.
74.
by thomashop 2y ago
How can you be sure with humans doing the work?
75.
by thomashop 2y ago
Same way you manage human failures?
76.
by thomashop 2y ago
We're giving free access to a model that other people trained on other people's data. The code for all improvements or tweaks is accessible in public repositories. From a copyright perspective, I think one can make a fair use argu
77.
by thomashop 2y ago
The problem for me is that they took our design, styles, fonts, colors, gradients, and name for a very similar product and shipped it with quite an impressive team that is well-funded by A16z. Their product is much slicker than what we are
78.
by thomashop 2y ago
This is very similar to the open source project https://pollinations.ai/ which I'm involved in.
79.
by thomashop 2y ago
Yes totally. They already tried doing a few online courses and had a few books. I'm a senior React Dev and the code is totally fine. No more anti-patterns than juniors who I've worked with who learned without AI. The contrary actu
80.
by thomashop 2y ago
I don't understand how that parallel prediction can work... Let's say I give it as input the sentence: I . . . . . . . . happily. The second word to be predicted depends on the first word.
81.
by thomashop 2y ago
One data point: In our startup we are short on frontend software engineers. Our project manager started helping with the UI using an IDE (cursor a VS-code fork) with native ChatGPT integration. In the span of six months, they have become ve
82.
by thomashop 2y ago
Hate seems like quite a strong reaction. My hunch is that quite soon, LLMs will be totally interchangeable. Due to the intense competition and the fact that people are basically training on the same base data distribution. In the tasks I&#x
83.
by thomashop 2y ago
Totally. I may have gone a bit far in my wording, but what irritated me was the cringy demos, not the actual app. I basically spend more time talking to ChatGPT than humans these days when I'm not on holiday. I'm in no way opposed
84.
by thomashop 2y ago
Yeah, upon reflection, I'm not sure if my suggestion is the best. Just, the default subservient, sexy female assistant doesn't help this technology's inclusivity.
85.
by thomashop 2y ago
I was referring to the default being a sexy female. Maybe it makes sense because the majority of users are male but I guess that's what I'd like to see change.
86.
by thomashop 2y ago
Yeah, it's not great. I just thought it was interesting someone tried. I don't know how I got myself into the position in this argument but where I'm coming from is a sexy female voice as the default for a voice assistant see
87.
by thomashop 2y ago
I don't think I'm always seeing malice first. I am just tired of the cliched sexy female voice assistant. Why not choose a gender-neutral voice if it makes a minority more comfortable? Does a gender-neutral voice cause harm to the
88.
by thomashop 2y ago
https://www.ted.com/talks/nis_norgaard_how_to_create_a_gende...
89.
by thomashop 2y ago
I agree that hiring should be based on skills. Creating a gender-neutral voice option in ChatGPT isn't about excluding male and female voices but promoting inclusivity. Offering a neutral voice by default helps avoid gendered stereotyp
90.
by thomashop 2y ago
I guess I went a bit far with my comment. I don't think one needs to restrict the voices to be only gender-neutral. But I think the default voice and your first public demos could be gender-neutral these days.

More ›