zahlman

8 ms·

121.
by zahlman 1mo ago
I'm just seeing what looks like an attempt to sell me a PDF. What actually is the source of such costs? The cashier still has to be paid even if the customer is using a card. Presumably there isn't anywhere near that much theft
122.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> If merchants across the world make a deal with me to charge exactly the listed/advertised number exactly, no more, no less, then I'll pay in cash again. This seems to still be pretty reliable for most things in brick-and-mort
123.
by zahlman 1mo ago
Sometimes people join a community and believe the rules are wrong and that they can convince others of it. (And sometimes they believe they shouldn't have to do the work to convince others.)
124.
by zahlman 1mo ago
None of that has anything to do with anything either of us said to you, and is also well outside of how people are expected to converse here.
125.
by zahlman 1mo ago
I apologize, but this leaves me even less able to make any sense out of GP's point.
126.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> I think you're slightly misunderstanding my point, which is that a huge spectrum of associative pattern seeking logics are embedded in language and that the LLM learns them and operates them, approximately. If this doesn't me
127.
by zahlman 1mo ago
It's cool that you're making a seemingly useful bit of software, but this reads like spam. "I had an agent summarize this" isn't particularly relevant to your opinion of it, unless you think the summary may have bee
128.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> How else would you define bias if not an offset from equality or zero mean? As an offset from what the ground truth justifies. Suppose the researchers had decided to load the dice when creating the fake sample data; an unbiased analyst
129.
by zahlman 1mo ago
No, the bias-making machinery is embedded in the machinery , part of the purpose of which is to do a rough kind of statistical analysis via "attention". If for example "Tufa" keeps appearing (n=small, but more than for
130.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> showed that the LLMs reproduce the human behavior of overgeneralizing early and failing to, as the paper says, sufficiently explore the space[0]. Perhaps because there is only a real drawback to doing so if avoidance of bias is explici
131.
by zahlman 1mo ago
If you're using it diligently enough to where some functions can be statically proven "pure", then yes. You can't call an impure function from a pure one.
132.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> It stops existing once you press Ctrl + C Your instance does. The words "expect it to last", along with the rest of the paragraph, are explaining the problem. But let me try again. You can't just expect everyone else t
133.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> but serious people didn't expect the kernel to be a boundary for a sophisticated attacker. I think it has more to do with what's on each side of the boundary in practice, a la https://xkcd.com/1200/ .
134.
by zahlman 1mo ago
Can you show me an example of a time that you prompted an LLM to provide some code, it did so, and then you were able to track down an original source for the output?
135.
by zahlman 1mo ago
Well, the risks that mere mortals can conceive generally involve control systems for dangerous equipment (I mean, equipment that can achieve dangerous effects) being connected to the Internet while having software vulnerabilities. Given the
136.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> On the subject of dataflow languages has there been any research in this area? Something that can stitch together processes as well or better than shell? Perl may work in this role but I have to admit I really dislike it's syntax,
137.
by zahlman 1mo ago
Maybe, but there are a couple of different kinds of "things" here: the actual primitive operations, and the techniques available for combining and coordinating them. For example, the `sort` program can only be told to sort based o
138.
by zahlman 1mo ago
Right; the context window also has to fit chain-of-thought about the code that has been read in, and so on and so forth. I already preferred to keep source code files under about 200 LOC, so.
139.
by zahlman 1mo ago
I think the assumption here is that the set of distinct words (hence, also the keys of the frequency map) will be small compared to the overall file.
140.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> isn't just that people don't see the low quality writing themselves, but that they must also be able to identify other's shit "LLM writings" right? This style emerged from a large number of people explicitly pr
141.
by zahlman 1mo ago
I did a double take when I saw the account name :)
142.
by zahlman 1mo ago
As they say, there's no accounting for taste.
143.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> That was always garbage, but to an LLM those posts look like success Well, no; they looked like success to the people doing the RLHF.
144.
by zahlman 1mo ago
> These are also the people who tend to complain about AI's writing style. What? No, the complaints come from the people who end up expected to read the result.
145.
by zahlman 2mo ago
> concise , factual summary of an LLM. Pardon; the what ?
146.
by zahlman 2mo ago
> About a year ago, all three big AI vendors could end up with strange "corrections" that would throw you off, but not anymore. Without a history of diffs created by this method, I don't believe you. > I am decent wit
147.
by zahlman 2mo ago
> But I'd rather read LLM writing than read typical long form perfect English journalist crap. The problem is precisely that LLM writing is that exact thing (at least by default), but even more so . Longer-form, more "perfec
148.
by zahlman 2mo ago
I mean, these things can be tested. Maybe some people really are gifted at discerning AI work, and of course there's no accounting for taste. But the former is subject to objective evaluation, and the latter should at least be somewhat
149.
by zahlman 2mo ago
> There is no way this passes the Turing test of a competent reader. Every day I get more depressed thinking of what's happened to the supply of competent readers.
150.
by zahlman 2mo ago
> Nobody ever disclosed Word's grammar suggestions or spelling corrections And plenty of people have made mistakes that clearly indicate mindlessly accepting such a "correction" when it was wrong (as opposed to just making

More ›