SuddenlyBlowGreen @ SuddenlyBlowGreen @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

320

Joined

2 yr. ago

They're religious? What a shame...

Politics, maybe, but how is science a religion?

Wow, you wrote a game engine in machibe language?

Can we see it?

And what happens when that runs out?

Ah yes, christian love.

I'm curious what you consider hate speed or bigotry against christians.

If I dislike all christians that follow the bible/their gods commands and believe in their gods benevolence, would you say I'm a bigot?

I am just someone that believes all humans should be treated with a bit of respect until they prove they are not worthy of it by their own personal words and actions.

That's what afraid_of_zombies has been saying all this time.

He also likes to threaten them with legal action.

I don't think there's a standard term for people subscribing to the “woke” ideology.

Empathic?

Decent?

Not a piece of shit?

There's plenty to choose from.

Notice how he's only posting clips from made up media as his "arguments", not anything remotely factual.

Fair point. How about this:

Let's compare the number of cases a conservative didn't get consent vs the number of cases a non-consentual kiss brought someone back from clinical death 🙂

Oh look, a conservative that doesn't belive in consent.

What a surprise.

It’s not hypocrisy in the same way that the Pope’s opposition to both birth control and abortion isn’t hypocrisy

That is also hypocrisy, thanks for another great example.

I assume you think of government support for pregnant women as a good thing

That is literally what the government is for, to support its citizens, yes.

but a lot of conservatives appear to disagree with you.

They also disagree with climate change and the earth being more than 6000 years old. Doesn't make them right, or any less hypocritical.

There's no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high.

But we (and they) know that reducing government support for pregnant women increases the number of abortions.

So they profess to wanting to "save lives" by ending abortions, while doing something that increases rhe number of abortions.

How exactly is that not hypocrasy?

Not really, because there's still some processes in the human brain we don't understand.

For example, you can list the steps and processes for every step an AI makes. You have to, in order to code and run it.

But you can't list every step or process taking place in cases of sudden savant syndrome, for example.

Yeah, windows is still the best (or at least the most compatible) for games, but all my servers use linux too. I played around with windows server a bit, but it's no contest.

Thankfully, with WSL you can do a lot (but not all) of the stuff I love linux for.

I mean I even automated the backup of my windows PC with WSL, and it works great.

This is exactly correct, except you’re also not accounting for the insane amount of computational power that would be necessary to backtrack a single output of a single model. This is why it is a black box. It simply is not possible on a meaningful level.

It's not practical, but it can be done. We simple don't have the time or inclination to do it.

It's like like saying we don't understand how an internal combustion engine works. Every explosion is a bit different, it pushes the pistons a bit less or more, it leaves a bit more or less residue in different places. We can't backtrack and check every cycle and every part on a meaningful level, but we understand of it works, and we could do it if we wanted to. It's just not practical.

As an example from my field: if you damage the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in a fully grown adult, they will have the impulse control of a three-year old. We know this because we have observed damage to this area in multiple individuals, and can measure the effects based on the severity of that damage.

Okay so explain how sudden savant syndrome works. Step by step, biochemical process by biochemical process.

In contrast, if you provide the same billion-parameter neural network identical inputs, you will not receive identical outputs.

If you take the same model, put it in a VM, give it an input, get an output and the restore the VM to the exact same state before and ensure there's no randomness, the model will give you same output.

Good point, for most people at least.

Although for me specifically, with the kind of work I do, it's not really an option.

Again, we have the input, we have the math and code that make it work, we have the weights, we have everything.

Would it take a lot of time to backtrack and check why we got a given output to an input? Yes, maybe an inordinate amount of time. But it can be done. It's only black box because nobody has the time (likely years to decades) to wade through the layers of a finished model to check every node and weight.

The whole thing at its core is mathematics. It's a series of steps, that can be listed and reviewed each step of the way if we wanted. It's just that if would take too much time.

If what you said were true, we couldn't reproduce models. And since we can...

It isn’t an exact science, however.

So if math and computer science isn't an exact science, what is?

We know the input, we can set the model to save the weight in checkpoints during training and can view them any time, and we can see weights of the finished model, and we can see the code.

If what you said about LLMs being completely black box were true, we wouldn't be able to reproduce models, and each model would be unique.

But we can control every step of the training process, and we can reproduce not just the finished model, but the model at every single step during training.

We created the math, we created the training sets, we created the code and we can see and modify the weights and any other property of the model.

What exactly do we not understand?