HorseRabbit @ HorseRabbit @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

103

Joined

2 yr. ago

Whats it called when an organization murders random people with the hope of scaring the public into not helping a different group?

What an odd thing to say.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Currently it's just a Lemmy client. It'll be cool to watch the development, but at present I don't see how it's any better than voyager. At least on mobile the interface has a lot more dead space than voyager.

Is that why people that smoke every day act like fucking children?

Why?

To the point of invention

Man that last paragraph is kind of a train wreck isn't it?

Boo

Not usually, no. They usually just want to live somewhere else.

Literally Jorjor Well

Militants like the Taliban?

What tankies are defending Wagner? Any examples?

Source?

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!

If he has now got supreme power couldn't he just declare that the president doesn't have supreme power, and hey presto it's gone?

Maybe I misunderstood the OP? Idk

People sometimes act like the models can only reproduce their training data, which is what I'm saying is wrong. They do generalise.

During training the models are trained to predict the next word, but after training the network is always effectively interpolating between the training examples it has memorised. But this interpolation doesn't happen in text space but in a very high dimensional abstract semantic representation space, a 'concept space'.

Now imagine that you have memorised two paragraphs that occupy two points in concept space. And then you interpolate between them. This gives you a new point, potentially unseen during training, a new concept, that is in some ways analogous to the two paragraphs you memorised, but still fundamentally different, and potentially novel.

Not an ELI5, sorry. I'm an AI PhD, and I want to push back against the premises a lil bit.

Why do you assume they don't know? Like what do you mean by "know"? Are you taking about conscious subjective experience? or consistency of output? or an internal world model?

There's lots of evidence to indicate they are not conscious, although they can exhibit theory of mind. Eg: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.08708.pdf

For consistency of output and internal world models, however, their is mounting evidence to suggest convergence on a shared representation of reality. Eg this paper published 2 days ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07987

The idea that these models are just stochastic parrots that only probabilisticly repeat their training data isn't correct, although it is often repeated online for some reason.

A little evidence that comes to my mind is this paper showing models can understand rare English grammatical structures even if those structures are deliberately withheld during training: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19827

cringe