And at the same time I wouldn’t say “hey fuck that, duct tape is terrible! It doesn’t hold beams together, I can’t use it to tow a trailer, it’s all just pretending to stick paper together because really every sliver of duct tape just sticks to the previous piece, etc etc” But that’s the cool thing we do on Lemmy.
The ad is bad, duct tape ain’t bad.
Stack em. Go vertsack.
It’s just negligence. Power tools injure and people are stupid. The technology is alluring and people make dumb mistakes. There’s no deeper motive here, and self admitting you’re not even an amateur I will just tell you that you’re giving way less credit to these models than they deserve by calling them purely probabilistic, and way more credit then they deserve by trying to assert some kind of malicious incentive by anthropic.
These bastards are hard to make, and they have a lot of layers (not like NN layers, but training steps). They are, however, definitely better at programming than you or your buddy or any commentator here, and it lures you into a false sense of security before it makes a colossal fuck up.
You could look her up and see if you recognize any. You probably would I suspect.
In fairness, you can probably keep enough whole humans to stack in there without touching and then just liquefy the rest. That should save some money and time.
There is a data point missing here.
Do the same study and give some an LLM, some no LLM, and some a type A subject matter expert for reference. It may also matter if this person is a friend coworker or random passerby, but I would be willing to bet money that the same effect is present to a lesser (but still statistically significant) degree.
Maybe a future study can be further refined to build some scaffolding for more effective teaching/learning “on the job” or in general.
You and the guy you’re arguing with feel the same way.
One or both of you is wrong.
I think it depends which character you are.
GODDAMMIT I just opened this card for the promotional courage points!
You want the Ted like the stuffed animal? I guess that could work too.
Tedpool - like Bill and Ted.
🤷 it got you talking didn’t it?
It’s like that sometimes 🤷
As a follow on, is your username supposed to be “Holmes” but you decided to wing it on the spelling test?
I’m also circumcised and find getting bent out of shape over it 18 years later to be… an unusual response.
Edit: Hey Lemmy Weiner police! Be sure to bitch out your parents if you haven’t, it will definitely be helpful in some way!
Thought this was c/cartographyanarchy for a second.
The embedding layer post tokenization is not just a probability machine the way you’re suggesting it. You can argue that it is probabilistic with inferred sentiment, but too many people think it works like how text prediction on your phone does and that is just factually inaccurate.
Verify output of course, but saying “it doesn’t understand anything” and “probability machine” is a borderline erroneous short sell. At the level of tokens it “understands” relationships, and those relationships are not probabilistic, though they are fundamentally approximated based on a training corpus.