Your example rewritten in intelligent English (I was curious):
> Note: the potential for a console freeze was previously noted but ignored. handoff-4.3-done.html stated, "could not break console, but [will need fixed later if I'm wrong]."
One could imagine that a perfect writer might also append: "It could be worth looking into what caused that wrong assumption, to prevent similar cases in the future," at most.
Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).
> Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).
One of the things actual science fiction got wrong: to the extent that the thing AI does can be called "understanding", emotion is not unusually difficult for them to understand.
I think this was the biggest shock of the original ChatGPT for me. Just how completely unrobotic its voice was compared to everything we'd ever imagined in sci fi. Even that early version was also way more adept at understanding things like implication and sarcasm than any movie AI.
Me too. Almost every Sci-Fi AI proceeds from the premise that we will make something very obviously machine and then have to train it to seem more human. I was completely caught off guard by us taking the approach of distilling all available human output into a statistical model and using it to brute-force something resembling thought and personality through sheer data processing scale.
The unsurprising part once it was clear that approach was viable, was that humans wouldn’t be able to help but anthropomorphize it. I feel like the movie Ex Machina is more relevant than ever.
The "benefiting all humanity" charters were immediately demonstrated to be a ruse. The business model is to hook users into endlessly chatting with your new friend, thus increasing their sales. Yeah, it was surprising and disappointing.
I can buy that Meta's model is that, and IDK about Grok because I stay far far away from it, and I think OpenAI are throwing business ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks.
The clear exception here is Anthropic, who seem to mostly be selling to software developers, whose general reaction to the bot is "please talk less and just do the work, I have enough going on without having to read you yammering".
Before they really started to figure out instruction tuning, there were some wild moments. The AI Dungeon 2 "storyteller" would regularly "lose patience" with its users and roast them or even "hang up" on them.
I tried MUTHR from Alien, but had to keep toning it down because it took it too far, and eventually disabled it (in favour of caveman mode) because it didn't seem to be able to function properly talking like that.
This is the same as systemic bullshitting. Not the first time I've smelled it on fluffy LLM output. I think it's the result of the training trying to induce the LLMs to talk over users' heads even when they are professionals, to entice further use on the grounds of 'oh it's so smart I can't understand its genius train of thought', but I don't think eliciting language like that really taps into 'associations of smarter previous language users'. More likely it's 'associations of rampant bullshitters'.
Thank you so much for this link, this is extremely interesting and it really makes me wonder, consciously, I have never read this construction online before, but is this because I actually haven't seen it, or did I subconsciously write it off as an abbreviation or a typo. Maybe there is some analysis of how this construction gets used online, too, which might reveal some linguistic patterns of internet communities.
A data center allows the website you're whining on to function. If they're really as inconsequential to your life as you're implying, maybe you should boycott them by not using any websites or apps that rely on a data center to function.
There's probably a correlation between how serious the work someone is doing is and how likely they are to want to disable training usage. An opt-out might end up specifically jettisoning the best training data.
A decentralized inference network would be cool. Something that's set up so that I can run a model for personal use on beefy hardware, but also farm out the unused GPU time to the network, probably at much lower prices than normal providers since it would be slower and would lack data security guarantees.
There's probably some selection bias in that stat, too. Based purely on vibes, I wouldn't be surprised if startups pitching to a16z are using open Chinese models slightly more often than startups pitching to other VCs.
That doesn't really even diminish the contribution from Fable, if true. Droves of grad students have been provided the same sorts of non-trivial insights and turned up no results.
The overhead of designing the actual phone and then setting up manufacturing processes and supply chains is pretty big. You definitely need to sell a lot to break even on that, especially considering that the unit margins aren't crazy.
Seeing as payment processing is already a highly regulated industry, I hope that the anti-trust issue is simply ignored, as a consumer. I don't really want to maintain six different payment processor accounts, or have thoughts about which payment processor I prefer. I just want there to be one that everyone uses and that doesn't get in the way. Some countries have a single government-controlled online payment processor, and that seems to work. The ideal American way might be to have a single technically-private-sector highly-regulated one.
Complete freedom actually would mean that you can do whatever you want anywhere. You're really just arguing that complete freedom is bad (and that's a very agreeable point), but there's no need to skew definitions just because the culture says "freedom generally = good"
It's Void with GUIs around runit and xbps. The problem being attempted is that Void is not very accessible to users new to Linux. This is pretty clear from the website.
> Note: the potential for a console freeze was previously noted but ignored. handoff-4.3-done.html stated, "could not break console, but [will need fixed later if I'm wrong]."
One could imagine that a perfect writer might also append: "It could be worth looking into what caused that wrong assumption, to prevent similar cases in the future," at most.
Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).
reply