Phanatik @ Phanatik @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

314

Joined

2 yr. ago

He's like Batman, he can be anyone.

Whenever some dipshit responds to me with "you're talking about AGI, this is AI", my only reply is fuck right off.

I've just done the dance already and I'm tired of their watered-down attempts at bringing human complexity down to a level that makes their chat bots seem smart.

I don't need a theory for this, you're being highly reductive by focusing on a few features of human communication.

I felt this with one of the laptops I put KDE Neon on. It had all manner of issues that never got a resolution.

There's no way these chatbots are capable of evolving into Ultron. That's like saying a toaster is capable of nuclear fusion.

Sounds like a great car! It does seem like something's wrong with the battery so a replacement is in order.

From the replies I've been getting, I think so.

This game has such good feedback from the shooting. Very meaty and satisfying. Movement could be smoother but overall, it's a fun game.

My mum's 2019 Toyota Yaris has to have its engine run every few days or the battery dies from just sitting on the driveway. It could be a faulty car battery but considering this car isn't even that old and has barely driven 30k miles, it's not doing so great. I discovered yesterday that my EV charges better after I've driven it around and the battery's warmed up a bit. The car goes a bit haywire when you cold start so it seems like it needs some prep time before a drive.

First of all, we're not having a debate and this isn't a courtroom so avoid the patronising language.

Second of all, my "belief" on the models' plagiarism is based on technical knowledge of how the models work and not how I think they work.

a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human

This would be impressive if it was true. An LLM is not intelligent simply through its appearance of intelligence.

It's enabling humans

It's a chat bot that's automated Google searches, let's be clear about what this can do. It's taken natural language processing and applied it through an optimisation algorithm to produce human-like responses.

No, I disagree at a fundamental level. Humans need to compete against each other and ourselves to improve. Just because an LLM can write a book for you, doesn't mean you've written a book. You're just lazy. You don't want to put in the work any other writer in existence has done, to mull over their work and consider the emotions and effect they want to have on the reader. To what extent can an LLM replicate the way George RR Martin describes his world without entirely ripping off his work?

i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

If I take a book you wrote from you without buying it or paying you for it, what would you call that?

I don't control the upvotes so I don't know why that's directed at me.

The refutation was based on around a misunderstanding of how LLMs generate their outputs and how the training data assists the LLM in doing what it does. The article itself tells you ChatGPT was trained off of copyrighted material they were not licensed for. The person I responded to suggested that comedians do this with their work but that's equating the process an LLM uses when producing an output to a comedian writing jokes.

Neither is an LLM. What you’re describing is a primitive Markov chain.

My description might've been indicative of a Markov chain but the actual framework uses matrices because you need to be able to store and compute a huge amount of information at once which is what matrices are good for. Used in animation if you didn't know.

What it actually uses is irrelevant, how it uses those things is the same as a regression model, the difference is scale. A regression model looks at how related variables are in giving an outcome and computing weights to give you the best outcome. This was the machine learning boom a couple of years ago and TensorFlow became really popular.

LLMs are an evolution of the same idea. I'm not saying it's not impressive because it's very cool what they were able to do. What I take issue with is the branding, the marketing and the plagiarism. I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer.

It's easy to look at what people have created throughout history and think "this looks like that" and on a point by point basis you'd be correct but the creation of that thing is shaped by the lens of the person creating it. Someone might make a George Carlin joke that we've heard recently but we'll read about it in newspapers from 200 years ago. Did George Carlin steal the idea? No. Was he aware of that information? I don't know. But Carlin regularly calls upon his own experiences so it's likely that he's referencing a event from his past that is similar to that of 200 years ago. He might've subconsciously absorbed the information.

The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they've admitted that it couldn't work as well as it does without stealing other people's work. I don't think they're taking the position that it's intelligent because from the beginning that was a marketing ploy. They're taking the position that they should be allowed to use the data they stole because there was no other way.

You are spitting out basic points and attempting to draw similarities because our brains are capable of something similar. The difference between what you've said and what LLMs do is that we have experiences that we are able to glean a variety of information from. An LLM sees text and all it's designed to do is say "x is more likely to appear before y than z". If you fed it nonsense, it would regurgitate nonsense. If you feed it text from racist sites, it will regurgitate that same language because that's all it has seen.

You'll read this and think "that's what humans do too, right?" Wrong. A human can be fed these things and still reject them. Someone else in this thread has made some good points regarding this but I'll state them here as well. An LLM will tell you information but it has no cognition on what it's telling you. It has no idea that it's right or wrong, it's job is to convince you that it's right because that's the success state. If you tell it it's wrong, that's a failure state. The more you speak with it, the more fail states it accumulates and the more likely it is to cutoff communication because it's not reaching a success, it's not giving you what you want. The longer the conversation goes on, the more crazy LLMs get as well because it's too much to process at once, holding those contexts in its memory while trying to predict the next one. Our brains do this easily and so much more. To claim an LLM is intelligent is incredibly misguided, it is merely the imitation of intelligence.

It's so funny that this is something new. This was Grammarly's whole schtick since before ChatGPT so how different is Grammarly AI?

Yeah except a machine is owned by a company and doesn't consume the same way. It breaks down copyrighted works into data points so it can find the best way of putting those data points together again. If you understand anything at all about how these models work, they do not consume media the same way we do. It is not an entity with a thought process or consciousness (despite the misleading marketing of "AI" would have you believe), it's an optimisation algorithm.

So as a data analyst a lot of my work is done through a computer but I can apply my same skills if someone hands me a piece of paper with data printed on it and told me to come up with solutions to the problems with it. I don't need the computer to do what I need to do, it makes it easier to manipulate data but the degree of problem solving required needs to be done by a human and that's why it's my job. If a machine could do it, then they would be doing it but they aren't because contrary to what people believe about data analysis, you have to be somewhat creative to do it well.

Crafting a prompt is an exercise in trial and error. It's work but it's not skilled work. It doesn't take talent or practice to do. Despite the prompt, you are still at the mercy of the machine.

Even by the case you've presented, I have to ask, at what point of a human editing the output of a generative model constitutes it being your own work and not the machine's? How much do you have to change? Can you give me a %?

Machines were intended to automate the tedious tasks that we all have to suffer to free up our brains for more engaging things which might include creative pursuits. Automation exists to make your life easier, not to rob you of life's pursuits or your livelihood. It never should've been used to produce creative work and I find the attempts to equate this abomination's outputs to what artists have been doing for years, utterly deplorable.

One difference is that the photographer has to go the places they're taking pictures of.

Another is that photography isn't comparable to paintings and it never has been. I'm willing to bet photography and paintings have never coexisted in a contest. Except, when people say their generative art is comparable to what artists have been producing by hand, they are admitting that generative art has more in common with photography than it does with hand-crafted art but they want the prestige and recognition those artists get for their work.

And I say that Nacon's problem is fucking over Frogwares over the Sinking City game. How about you pay the developers you scum

Exactly! You can glean so much from a single work, not just about the work itself but who created it and what ideas were they trying to express and what does that tell us about the world they live in and how they see that world.

This doesn't even touch the fact that I'm learning to draw not by looking at other drawings but what exactly I'm trying to draw. I know at a base level, a drawing is a series of shapes made by hand whether it's through a digital medium or traditional pen/pencil and paper. But the skill isn't being able replicate other drawings, it's being able to convert something I can see into a drawing. If I'm drawing someone sitting in a wheelchair, then I'll get the pose of them sitting in the wheelchair but I can add details I want to emphasise or remove details I don't want. There's so much that goes into creative work and I'm tired of arguing with people who have no idea what it takes to produce creative works.