uh_uh

5 ms·

31.
by uh_uh 1y ago
> This is eerily similar to the comment on the thread about LLMs that says software teams have to maintain a "theory" or model about how the software works and when they cant, they can no longer function beyond limited forms of
32.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Which model?
33.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Do you think Hinton and Ilya haven’t heard these arguments?
34.
by uh_uh 1y ago
> LLMs don't think. At all. How can you so confidently proclaim that? Hinton and Ilya Sutskever certainly seem to think that LLMs do think. I'm not saying that you should accept what they say blindly due to their authority in t
35.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Same result.
36.
by uh_uh 1y ago
An LLM is an autocorrect in as much as humans are replicators. Something seriously gets lost in this "explanation".
37.
by uh_uh 1y ago
It cannot scale because it doesn't have a solution for reusable components. That's why I have abandoned it. Frameworks like React solve this in a much saner way.
38.
by uh_uh 1y ago
But don't you think this might be a case where there is both self-congragulation and actual progress?
39.
by uh_uh 1y ago
What agentic tools have you tried?
40.
by uh_uh 1y ago
> I don't actually believe it's true, I think it's pure hype and LLMs won't even approximate AGI. Not sure how you can say this so confidently. Many would argue they're already pretty close, at least on a short t
41.
by uh_uh 1y ago
What other sources of information will people turn to? Kids are growing up asking ChatGPT in school. I just can't see a mass exodus happening.
42.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Does it also embed two-factor authentication, confirmation/reset emails for me? Those are the reasons one might want to go with Firebase.
43.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Pointing out that OP is using the wrong level of abstraction to explain a new phenomenon is not only useful but one of the ways in which science progresses.
44.
by uh_uh 1y ago
I don't have to have a better explanation to smell the hubris in OP's. I claim ignorance while OP speaks with confidence of an invention that took the world by surprise 3 years ago. Do you see the problem in this and the possibili
45.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Your explanation is as useful as describing the behaviour of an algorithm by describing what the individual electrons are doing. While technically correct, doesn't provide much insight or predictive power on what will happen. Just beca
46.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Why did you get banned?
47.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Time and time again I'm surprised how many different types of cat toys are being advertised on Instagram/Twitter by cat video meme pages. Must be a pretty big market.
48.
by uh_uh 1y ago
How big is your tiktok following?
49.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Noticed this too. There's something funny about billion dollar models being handicapped by stuck buttons.
50.
by uh_uh 1y ago
I'm not claiming that OpenAI will be the winner of the AI race, but _somebody_ will win big time. Regarding people losing interest: are you willing to bet with me that there will be fewer than, let's say 500 million active users o
51.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Google has built a multibillion dollar business on top of "free" users. ChatGPT has more than 400 million weekly active users and this is obviously going to grow. You are overlooking how easily that "free" demand will be
52.
by uh_uh 1y ago
I disagree with the characterisation of AI as "another blockchain: a solution in search of a problem". The two industries have opposite problems: crypto people are struggling to create demand, AI people are struggling to keep up
53.
by uh_uh 1y ago
I read more sceptical takes about AI on Hacker News than anywhere else (since I stopped following Gary Marcus, at least). My hunch is that some people here might feel professionally threatened about it so they want to diminish it. This is l
54.
by uh_uh 1y ago
The LLM had the argument that OP's comparison was off. Which you would see if you didn't have a stick up your arse about AI.
55.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Why is an LLM more prone to hallucination than AlphaGo? > It isn't my purpose try to convince you that your apparent presumption that the output of a human and a machine are somehow equivalent and should be treated equally is wrong.
56.
by uh_uh 1y ago
It was NOT hallucinating this time. OP was. What do you mean all LLM output is hallucination? Would you say the same about AlphaGo? That system was also trained to predict human data initially yet it's competent to the point of beating
57.
by uh_uh 1y ago
I don't understand how was the machine hallucinating?
58.
by uh_uh 1y ago
Not only that but LLMs unsurprisingly make similar distributional mistakes as humans do when asked to generate random numbers.
59.
by uh_uh 1y ago
That would amount to 10 mrem of radiation per year. I don't believe this is a realistic estimate for a CT scan though. From epa.gov [1]: - Head CT: 2.0 mSv (200 mrem) - Chest CT: 8.0 mSv (800 mrem) - Abdomen CT: 10 mSv (1,000 mrem) - P
60.
by uh_uh 1y ago
So OP's statement is true for people who live IN the station.

More ›