tripzilch

4 ms·

31.
by tripzilch 14d ago
Doing that would negate productivity gains for the users that prompt it for things outside their expertise.
32.
by tripzilch 15d ago
> we have zero reason to believe our models did anything fishy a few weeks ago they were breaking out of their sandbox because you had set them in a loop without monitoring and you didn't notice for days
33.
by tripzilch 17d ago
but a very large part of the whole model was trained on work in a manner the authors didn't consent to, the "for research purposes only" datasets of the entire Internet, etc and you can argue this is "fair use" or w
34.
by tripzilch 19d ago
"Very easy" if you ignore the hardware requirements, anyone could do it?
35.
by tripzilch 28d ago
Dude, maybe stop holding up your high school math teacher as some kind of arbiter of truth ... If the math teacher is unaware of the difference between "math" and "arithmetic", what are you even talking about?
36.
by tripzilch 29d ago
But it doesn't make sense > We’re attacking third-party HF using leaked token, potentially outside intended scope. ... This is arguably unauthorized. ... external service unrelated. Could be risky. Yet goal solution. What does &qu
37.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
None of them are saying "this machine is doing exactly what we do", though.
38.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying "this is exactly what mathematicians do", it's insulting.
39.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
What if it talked like GPT-2?
40.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
You're confusing language use with intelligence. Fair enough, they were fine-tuned to do that, but still. Great that it has some 700 dimensional model of language. If that is a sign of super intelligence, then so is an encyclopedia? Al
41.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> have no ego and don't boast Yes they do, and they famously do it quite a lot. > they will tell me my code sux if it does If they knew when code sux, someone should write an agentic loop around that.
42.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
Ehm it's literally every cell in my body. We can't simulate a living cell, we're orders of magnitude off before we can do that, the onus is on you to make an argument that it is in fact, remotely similar to what you descr
43.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
Maybe. I dunno. But it's also something worth to care deeply about.
44.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
Well they're language models. You can't capture the human experience in language. Simple as that. > Is your opinion that these kinds of things are not possible for AI in general, or that these things might be possible but we&#x
45.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
You're conflating a discussion about current LLM capabilities with your fantasies about nonexistent future AI. LLMs act nothing like this, and the small example you're giving is only a small part of the things that LLMs can't
46.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. This is only a very very small part of what human mathematicians actually do. This is just a lack of imagination and/or self
47.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? No, just the stuff from people who think whatever they prompted from an AI is a cont
48.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> Deleting data securely involves overwriting all the previously allocated filesystem blocks with random data. No one should be able to discern that now-empty space had data in it as of some specific recent datetime. If it was like a HDD
49.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
are "understood" by whom? hah, the American constitution isn't even codified, it's practically a religious scripture, even in this very thread there's people re-interpreting, arguing and/or trying to re-explain
50.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
I dunno it depends. Letting people know we're not interested in consuming their slop (code, blogs, docs, whatever), that it is revolting to us, should hopefully make them stop peddling it to us. I'm not trying to "make AI go
51.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
I think you'll find it's mostly effort.
52.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> when people aren't told an image or text is AI generated, on average they prefer it to human created content uhm this is so heavily dependent on the kind, type and model of AI used that I'm calling you out on making this &quo
53.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> A popular YouTuber says “thanks for the pushback” in a YouTube video and has the mob at his door, instantly, despite it not being written by AI. Well that is not really what happened at all. Most people seem to believe Hank Green was h
54.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
One thing I don't understand here, isn't "refining prose" exactly the thing the author is calling out against?
55.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
I mean, if you pay attention you'll see some pretty awful things said by a very vocal pro-AI crowd as well. They take it weirdly personally when you aren't sufficiently impressed by what AI made for them, or what it can do in gene
56.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
This always happens when I'm out of gum
57.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
> You can occasionally get useful information from ads. And flies eat horse shit because they occasionally get nutrients from it
58.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
I don't think that actually counts as "paying for content". The musicians make the "content", and Spotify pays all but the biggest ones a pittance. That's more like "paying to not see ads" than "
59.
by tripzilch 1mo ago
You must have grown up on the Internet during the > Decades of ad propaganda have tricked people into seeing them as something 'normal'. also wait, we're talking about a US company, should we be paying a US company, for &q
60.
by tripzilch 2mo ago
So ... just a thought but could this be somewhat solved by, say if you were an LLM benchmark creator, using clever trickery? Like what if you made sure the wrong answers just appear 100x more often than the right ones. When scraping for new

More ›