howrar @ howrar @lemmy.ca

Posts

4

Comments

1,048

Joined

2 yr. ago

I find it amusing that everyone is answering the question with the assumption that the premise of OP's question is correct. You're all hallucinating the same way that an LLM would. 

LLMs are rarely trained on a single source of data exclusively. All the big ones you find will have been trained on a huge dataset including Reddit, research papers, books, letters, government documents, Wikipedia, GitHub, and much more. 

Example datasets:

• RedPajama
• The Pile

What's your definition of power then?

I would argue that there is a bidirectional casual relationship. Having more money gives you more power because you can directly spend that money to do things. More power means you can better influence people to give you their money.

We're not at a point yet where this is a concern, so still on the brainstorming phase of how to do this.

I think the main concern I have is the addictive side of the internet that's enabled by their recommendation systems and infinite scrolling, so that's what I would try to block. For example, allow free reign on YouTube, but you have to specifically search for what you want to see.

There's also the question of privacy, and whether we should be keeping track of and checking their browsing histories. I'm currently leaning towards yes, while also making sure that they're aware of what we're doing. There's value in letting them make their own mistakes and learning from them, but that only applies to things that they can learn and easily recover from.

Immediately afterwards? I've been told to wait at least half an hour after eating, or else brushing will have a negative effect on your teeth.

We have one for my city centered around socializing and meeting people. We haven't been getting any of the kinds of problems that everyone else here have faced.

I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It's unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.

Hmmmm... A quick pickled depression you say

Still, some are closer to the source of these ideas than others, think about awards attributed to individuals for example.

This is where the researchers would disagree with you. I don't know if you've ever been involved in research (or startups). There's a common saying that ideas are a dime a dozen. It's much more so the work you do that's important, not the idea itself.

singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers

Notice how being in the spotlight is an important aspect of all the professions you've listed. That naturally selects for people who are comfortable with or enjoy being on camera and are good at that kind of live performance. Similarly, science selects for people who are good at doing science. Sometimes, there's an overlap, but it's not that common.

If you're interested in interviews with prominent scientists, Lex Fridman does quite a few of those. But if you want more people to do this, you'll have to contend with the fact that most scientists simply have no interest in being on camera and probably never developed the skills needed for it.

We likely don't know much about the researchers of modern technology because they're often created by a huge team of hundreds of people. There's no single person responsible for the bulk of the work. In the case of ChatGPT and the line of work leading up to it, it was very much also the researchers' choice as well to not name a specific person as being the main contributor. For example, the transformer paper had all the author names shuffled so the credit doesn't all end up with one person.

Same. I keep thinking back to my time TAing for an intro programming course and getting students who just add random braces until their code compiles. That's me right now with Rust pointers.

As a developer? You're not going to get very far if you refuse to write websites for the world's current most popular browser.

A person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would determine killing is bad

Science does not produce value judgements.

I think the idea is that if you create the demand for hydrogen, then there will be more incentive to produce cheap and environmentally friendly hydrogen.

And that's not all. It's easy to tell someone the high level area that you're working on, but to explain the exact problem you're trying to solve and why it's interesting? That's a whole journey into many topics that are very unintuitive for human brains to grasp and sometimes require heavy mathematical abstractions to even see that there's a problem to begin with.

If you're reading an academic paper, you just follow the citations until someone defines it.

Yeah, it's dumb. We write like normal people in academic papers too. I don't know why they ever taught it this way.

Markov chains, but without being Markovian.

The numbers you want to look at are PDCASS and/or DIAAS scores of each protein source.

Exclusive or would mean that if the owner happens to sell at exactly 25 years, then there's no need to repay. It wouldn't make sense.

Based on the other comments, it sounds like you mean "and" rather than "xor"?