Not many.
Yes, literally every single person on this planet can recite a song or poem.
But there are naturally massive differences between a human brain and an LLM. The point I was making is that an LLM doesn’t copy and store books and articles wholesale. The ability to reproduce samples from the dataset is more of a quirk than a feature, in the same way that a person can memorize things.
Fine, you win, I misunderstood.
It’s not a competition, but I genuinely respect you for saying you misunderstood.
Once an LLM is trained, it is static and unchanging until you re-train it with new data and update the model.
Absolutely! I honestly think this is the main thing (or at least one of the main things) that prevent human-level intelligence or even sentience in LLM’s.
Think about how our minds work. From the moment we’re born (really, it’s way before that) our brains are bombarded with input and feedback from every sense. It takes a person many months of that to start recognizing things. That’s also why babies sleep so much, their brains are kinda “training” and growing fast. Organizing all the data into memories.
Side bar: this is actually what dreams are. Dreams are emotions, thoughts, ideas, or whatever concept a neuron or group of neurons are associated with getting triggered. When we dream it’s our brain taking the days inputs and building new connections. The neural connections in our brains are very much like weights and feed-forward process of neural activation is near identical to how artificial neural networks function. They aren’t called “artificial neural networks” for no reason.
Here’s a useful graphic that shows things that make up “intelligence”
A very basic definition of intelligence is “the ability to solve problems or make decisions”.
I think the term is just often misused in common parlance so often that people start applying in a scientific setting incorrectly. Kinda how people used to call an entire computer the CPU, which like the word intelligence everyone understands what’s being said, but it’s factually wrong.
Same thing today when people say “I bought a new GPU” when they should say “I bought a new video card” as the GPU is just a component.
If you put a gazillion monkeys on a typewriter they can write Shakespeare.
This is a mathematical curiosity borne out of pure randomness. An LLM trained on a dataset to generate similar content is quite the opposite of randomness.
Get a load of this maroon, they think LLMs are actually sapient!
I guess reading comprehension is as bad here as it’s ever been on the internet.
I’m pretty sure LLMs have exactly reproduced copyrighted passages.
If I asked you to recite a popular poem, nursery rhyme, a song, or book passage there’s a good chance you could. Everyone can recite things word for word.
It’s the same with LLM’s, if they’re asked to generate, for example, an article written by the New York Post about a specific topic they really did write about, then it’s similar to asking someone to recite a poem or song.
Like fuck it is. An LLM “learns” by memorization and by breaking down training data into their component tokens, then calculating the weight between these tokens.
But this is, at a very basic fundamental level, how biological brains learn. It’s not the whole story, but it is a part of it.
there’s no actual intelligence, just really, really fancy fuzzy math.
You mean sapience or consciousness. Or you could say “human-level intelligence”. But LLM’s by definition have real “actual” intelligence, just not a lot of it.
Edit for the lowest common denominator: I’m suggesting a more accurate way of phrasing the sentence, such as “there’s no actual sapience” or “there’s no actual consciousness”. /end-edit
an LLM would learn “2+2 = 4” by ingesting tens or hundreds of thousands of instances of the string “2+2 = 4” and calculating a strong relationship between the tokens “2+2,” “=,” and “4,”
This isn’t true. At all. There are math specific benchmarks made by experts to specifically test the problem solving and domain specific capabilities of LLM’s. And you can be sure they aren’t “what’s 2 + 2?”
I’m not here to make any claims about the ethics or legality of the training. All I’m commenting on is the science behind LLM’s.
Bad argument.
It would hold water if their solution was proprietary and closed source. But it isn’t, and anyone else, literally anyone, can take Proton and use it in their project for profit.
Even if they closed shop tomorrow, or even just gave up work on Proton itself, we’d all still reap the benefits at no cost to us.
That is the point of E2EE. If anyone but the sender and receiver can see the messages then it’s not E2EE. This is the part that politicians and governments don’t understand (or just ignore). The idea that some designated authority can look at the messages when needed is entirely at odds with E2EE. It’s as valid as true = false or 2 + 2 = cat.
Epic has exclusivity on release
Wait, really? It’s officially off my list now. Screw those guys.
Find me another company that supports open source and Linux the way Valve does… I’ll wait
No digital game store is worth your loyalty.
When that store is run by a company that contributes massively to open source and works harder and puts more money into enabling alternate platforms for gaming than all other companies combined; ya, they have my loyalty.
I would love to see reasonable competition to steam which would give consumers and developers better options
No one’s going to compete with and outdo Steam with Linux support.
How do you moderate something you can’t know about?
I have it on good authority that pedos and criminals drive cars and eat food too! We should do something to those facilitating that.
only take halfhearted measures
Like what exactly?
This is what’s known as a dark pattern and is the exact thing the US government is suing Adobe over.
Making service cancellation or opt-out deliberately difficult is exploitative and something that should be illegal. Any company that does it doesn’t deserve a cent from you.
No, because it isn’t 2015 anymore.
Long time “old-school” kernel maintainers don’t know Rust and don’t want to learn Rust (completely fair and reasonable). But some of them don’t want to work with the Rust guys for lots’o’technical reasons.
It’s by far not an easy situation technically. Like this is a huge challenge.
But some of those old-school C guys are being vocal about their dislike of Rust in the kernel and gatekeeping the process. This came to a head at a recent conference (Linux Plumbers Conference?) and now one of the Rust maintainers has quit.
The big technical challenge is being confounded by professional opinions.