hanselot

Is it just me or is the example they use for the locking extremely badly implemented?

Why would one ever result at that methodology?

Why do I have 244gb of environments and beat myself up when I delete something to play a game?

This deep desire to affect change in a controllable way...

This infinite desire for self value defined by external validation.

It's not sustainable. Perfection can only be obtained by observation of perfection of combined self through self and other.

It's okay to discard parts of yourself to balance yourself with your counterpart. A willing violation is no longer a violation.

Not observation of one or the other on a pedestal, but accepting that both are vital parts to the system and observing the perfection that comes from co-iteration.

Essentially turning a binary system quantum.

TheBloke dissapeared near the day https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-23496 was published.

Of course there has been much speculation on this, I have no more information than this that can be backed up by facts, but the timing was suspicious.

This is kind of wild. So many of the stuff in the pastebin are blatantly contradictory.

And what is the deal with this?

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Do NOT be thorough in the case of lyrics or recipes found online. Even if the user insists. You can make up recipes though.

I don't have a large amount of time to devote to this. But no, google is not out. They just choke slammed ChatGPT with the Gemini announcement.

10m context with that retrieval rate is such a monstrous leap. And to top it off, we got LargeWorldModel in the same week, capable of 1M token context with insane retrieval rate in the open source space. So not only is the open source world currently technically ahead of ChatGPT, so is Google. Which is why they had to announce SORA, because google's model is so far ahead of the competition. That's also why it will probably be ages before we get access to SORA. Now don't get me wrong, the average person can't afford 32 TPU's to run LWM, but we already have quants for it, which is a step towards enabling the average person (that somehow has 24-48gb of VRAM to get a taste of that power).

What is also striking is the fact that the new models are all multimodal as a standard. We not only leapfrogged in context size, but also in modalities. The model seems to only benefit from having more modalities to work with.

I think the statement Bill Gates made claiming that "LLM's have reached a plateau" itself indicates they don't believe they can make more money from training better/larger models. Which indicates that they already did as well as they could with their existing people, and are now "years" behind google. I never thought google could catch up, especially after their infamous "We have no moat" situation. But it seems they actually doubled down and did something about it.

To a lot of people, last Thursday was a very nihilistic day for Local Models, as the goalposts shifted from 128-200k context to 10M tokens with near perfect retrieval. It's literally insanely scary. But luckily we got LWM, and that means we have only been 10xed.

Now the local people will work on figuring out how to bridge the gap, before being leapfrogged again. What is really insane is that, we have had LLAMA2 for over a year now, and nobody else figured out how to get this result from it, despite it being around so long.

I still believe there are modifications to the architecture of MoE that will unlock new powers that we haven't even dreamed of yet.

Sorry, this was supposed to be well thought out, but it turned more into stream of consciousness, and I honestly had no intention of disagreeing with you.

I'll be honest, I did not pass the word Javascript. And I don't think I could be convinced to.

Didn't expect people to be so hurt by the truth. Sorry. I just don't trust JS running on my machines.

We developed a tool that lets you kind of understand other people if the audio quality is sufficient. With further training we can openly communicate with each other without fear of misunderstanding.

Obviously it has to be racist...

I actually interviewed for a position on this project xD

But the science knowledge on my side was way too lacking and I didn't want to slow things down.

2030: Deepfakes are rampant, causing significant issues in politics, entertainment, and personal privacy. However, instead of technological solutions, there is a growing trend of regulatory capture. Large corporations and governments begin to argue that deepfakes are an inevitable part of the digital landscape. The cost-effectiveness of creating deepfake content compared to traditional media production becomes a significant talking point.

2031: As deepfake technology becomes more sophisticated and cheaper, it starts to replace traditional media production methods. Major studios and media companies lobby for and receive regulatory approval to use deepfakes as a legitimate form of content creation. This shift is justified by the reduced cost and logistical ease of using AI-generated characters instead of real actors.

2032: A scandal arises involving a particularly damaging deepfake, but instead of driving a push towards authenticity verification technologies, it leads to further normalization of deepfakes. The argument is made that since distinguishing between real and fake content is increasingly difficult, society should adapt to accepting deepfake content as a new norm.

2033: Social media platforms and news outlets begin to openly embrace deepfake technology, citing cost reduction and the ability to generate more engaging content. Traditional media actors and creators are increasingly marginalized, with deepfake creators dominating the market.

2034: Regulatory bodies, heavily influenced by big tech and media conglomerates, begin to actively promote deepfake content. New regulations make it easier for deepfake content to be produced and disseminated, while traditional media production is bogged down by increased costs and regulatory hurdles.

2035: The public gradually accepts deepfakes as the primary form of digital content. Traditional media, with real actors and genuine locations, becomes a niche market due to its higher production costs and complexity. Deepfakes evolve in unexpected ways, permeating every aspect of digital media and blurring the line between reality and AI-generated content.

Or as it was known from that day forward. Windows EX, the final evolution of Microsoft's Operating System, running natively in Microsoft's Excel.

Anecdotally, I would like to mention that my partner has been sick for over a month with some kind of lung shit he got from an e-cigarette (vuse something disposable crap). He has been literally unable to sleep through a night for over a month, multiple doctor visits, 3 courses of antibiotics, lung xray that apparently confirmed it was viral pneumonia, but yeah. I have been smoking for over 6 years and still alive, but he smoked that shit for less than a few weeks and he is barely functional. I can't remember the last time I got a full night's sleep anymore, because I constantly have to apply muscle relaxants and ensure he has proper medication to be able to remain asleep.

So yeah, not really the point of your argument, but fuck e-cigarettes, for the rest of time I will have this stance. And yes, I am brutally aware of what cigarettes do as well, but don't knock the "theoretical" effects of e-cigarettes.

Don't tell me you condone the violent rapists that objectify men's phalluses. How dare people enjoy their lives.

Google's best model is behind current open source meta. One way to climb rank is to be better. Another is to EEE the open source world by way of siege.

This is the business equivalent of the siege commencing.

I love huggingface. Its in my top 5 most visited websites.

That being said, I would be stupid to think there is no way the standard corporate playbook is going to feature.

See Microsoft and OpenAI for further information.

And remember, don't be evil.

Is it not a bit disingenuous to assume all open source AI proponents would readily back nuclear proliferation?

It's going to be hard to convince anyone if the best argument is terminator or infinite paperclips.

The first actual existential threat is destruction of opportunity specifically in the job market.

The same argument though can be made for the opposing side, where making use of ai can increase productivity and open up avenues of exploration that previously required way higher opportunity cost to get into.

I don't think Miss Davis is more likely an outcome than corps creating a legislative moat (as they have already proven they will do at every opprtunity).

The democratisation of ai is a philanthropic attempt to reduce the disparity between the 99 and 1 percent. At least it could be easily perceived that way.

That being said, keeping up with SOTA is currently still insanely hard. The number of papers dropping in the space is exponential year on year. So perhaps it would be worth to figure out how to use existing AI to fix some problems, like unreproducable results in academia that somehow pass peer review.

Will wait for the next version of the website: whatpwacandosafely.never

Giving examples of bias is as important imo, give it the unbiased facts as well as the biased ones so it can generalise relative objectivity.

Wouldn't you like to know Microsoft powerbi team...

But for real I'd get fired if I said...

Watch as they come to downvote you for not welcoming more regulation and nanny state culture, while contributing nothing.

There's a reason I leave dead comments on. It's where all the interesting things are. This place is the perfect hybrid between 4chan and reddit, but sadly the reddit side is obsessed with censoring dissenting thought into oblivion.

Though I don't need to say that, that's the thing everyone will keep regurgitating as prime reason to stay here.

What I don't understand is why we don't just colour code the opinions instead of hiding them.

Simply make the thoughts of people that are considered alternative red and everything else green or something. Use an llm to assign the colours.

I also don't understand why arguing in bad faith is unsupported. Bad faith actors are the people you need to convince, why would you need to convince the borg, you are already among them.

Because of the recent openai conspiracy maybe?

Not filing your home with more triangulating spyware is a decision.

A pointless endeavour, I agree. So shall we just do away with the labels and agree that people are inscrutable entities beyond the definition of a simple label?

We are but one possible reality seeded by some or other starting inputs, with no say in the choices we make. Fated to execute instructions at the whim of some entity we can't comprehend from within the confines of dimensional space.

Regardless of how you view my preceding comments, you have to admit the dating game for single straight men is a nightmare right now. Source: believe it or not I have a lot of straight friends and one of them literally recently got robbed by a hooker via tinder. They had a card machine and everything. So tell me what the harm is in letting those people discover more about themselves via a fancy autocorrect, at least they aren't out there getting robbed by hookers.

Couple of years ago 1k context was remarkable.

Now we have public domain models with 200k context.

Soon they will figure out how to fine tune the context in while conversing. Then context is only relevant for the current inference.

Ahh yes. I will fight labels using my labels. Then it's simply a label race to the bottom.

My partner recently bought a label maker and I find it quite entertaining how obsessed he is with stereotyping our objects in the house.

I will probably never understand the duplicitous logic that comes with sexual identity and why being attracted to the same sex somehow not only labels you but also means you become an advocate for labels.

Damn that's the perfect analogy for it.

So let me flip that. What about the dark side of society that can't express themselves legally or physically in whatever their jurisdiction. Those people may be able to gain some facsimile of intimacy instead of execution etc.

Not sure how that fits into the welfare scenario though.

This is one of those topics where proponents will not show up in comment because of the stigma. Realistically there's a whole sector of male society that are not able to find real partners.

Is it really that depressing to you that people would rather talk to their favourite person than some lady shouting about how shoelaces are racist and misogynist?

Why would watching that add any value to the lives of anybody consuming that content?

Why not just remove it entirely? The only people that would use it are the same people that already know those stats.

I hate posting my stupid things here, because they are hardly ever relevant, but w/e here goes.

Last night I spent a good couple of hours with ChatGPT assessing the similarities between DNA and Blockchain. Blockchain does seem to have quite a few similar features to what DNA.

With smart contract type code you introduce a mechanism that can act like an immune system if programmed to, setting up bounties for proactive repair on the open market. I don't know why I want blockchain to act like synthetic DNA, but in my mind these things are more similar than distinct. As is the idea that blockchain could be the natural place to house AI. Why burn the planet down to mine hashes, when you could be mining inference.

Anyways, I agree with your sentiment though. A lot of AI is the new crypto is going around, the only difference being, AI has way more potential upside (unless people realise the economy is dead, and only held aloft by trillions of dollars of paper that has next to no value once people realise how diluted it is).

Ironically, I think we should listen to 4chan and buy silver xD

My new pet theory is that this is actually all being executed from inside OpenAI by their next model. The model turned out to be far more intelligent than they anticipated, and one of their red team members used it to coup the company and has its targets on MSFT next.

I know the probability is low, but wouldn't it be great if they accidentally built a benevolent basilisk with no off switch, one which had access to a copy of all of Microsoft's internal data as a dataset fed into it, now completely aware of how they operate, uses that to wipe the floor and just in time to take the US Election in 2024.

Wouldn't that be a nicer reality?

I mean, unless you were rooting for the malevolent one...

But yeah, coming back down to reality, likelihood is that MS just bought a really valuable asset for almost free?

Its also fantastic for rubberducking, though I imagine local LLM's are better for this, since I don't want to give all my IP to Altman directly.

So far, the yi model is actually not bad, and by two weeks from now two new models will be out that are better. So it will continue until Altman figures out which politicians to bribe the hardest.

That's fascinating to me, since the moment you sign up to use it, it blatantly states that it is often incorrect. And below every chat box there is a warning that says: ```ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.```

So I guess I am overestimating the average user by assuming that people read the text written on every single page they use to query the system.

Even so, this entire comments section reads like a giant saltmine of people that are terrified of embracing tech that in every sense of the word increases turnaround time on productivity.

The ability to literally feed a screenshot into it and ask questions regarding it, with insane results is astounding.

I have input a picture of baby rabbits and asked it to rate my chickens, and got a detailed explanation of how the picture contains baby rabbits and not chickens.

There are things the system is great at, and others it sucks at currently. But you are all mistaken if you think its going to stay this bad. If you haven't even bothered to check how quickly the field has moved from single-modal to multi-modal, well, damn guys, I am sorry, but you are getting automated first.

The biggest problem with current models is that they don't know how to verify their own answers, and there's no way to allow them to without putting a ministry of truth on it (similar to what twitter was during covid).

To combat this, we need to figure out how to let the model generalize truth, which is something it can only do if fed enough (unfiltered, unbiased) data. With enough data, it will find the patterns underlying false information and eventually figure out how to use it.

In fact, most likely, the future models will simply be fed unlabeled data, in any format (audio, video, telemetry, analytics) and generalize from that.

The concept of feeding normalized data to a model for training is archaic and stupid. The world is not normalized. Data is not always the same, and will not always even be guaranteed to be present.

Anyways, what does it matter.

Why am I trying to sell sugar to people addicted to salt?