srslack
http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...
Machine translated: https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf
Interview: https://hackmd.io/@sanxiyn/seize-interview
You are misinformed. It's in the original Korean paper.
I implemented a version of it while I was waiting for openai to roll it out to me with pyodide and it worked well. Got it to re-encode videos right in the browser with a bit of tweaking of the langchain plugins prompt. When I did get it, it was a very nice breath of productivity though their interface could be better for many things beyond that. But their fine tune was better for sure than the API + system prompting.
With Meta supposedly releasing their new model soon, I think anyone who cares about control over their language calculator and not having to be predictably and incessantly lectured by some moralizing RLHF should try to contribute to the community and build out the infrastructure, fine tunes and tools instead of just relying on an org who wanted their moat so badly that they decided to fear monger and confuse the public.
Try reading this legal opinion: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53...
Let's just take it on its face. OpenAI, the most "powerful" foundation model has a rolling release of every 4-5 months. I've witnessed loss of "reasoning" and outright ignoring of instructions in some cases using the latest models unless you push some things through the functions parameter, which will probably break a lot of prompts, especially the agentic ones. Imagine that, there's no free lunch with a fine tune. You're pretty much at the mercy of a company you're basing your business on not breaking your shit every 5 months. And with how they handled deprecating davinci, it'll keep happening.
In other news, a lot of the VC cash that is flying around right now and is a bit deluded and chasing some vague concept of "AGI" that's coming soon(tm), but given typical Bay Area bullshitting who knows if they are actually a true believer(tm)(c) or they're just throwing around cash looking for your typical unicorn. Strikes me as delusional too. I'm sure you'll have multimodal models any day now that can do everything from pick strawberries to writing and maintaining some bottom of the barrel web app.
So, more delusion and more bullshit. Lately, in general, and it's not a personal thing against the author or his business at all. It's just much in line with the frenzy that I see elsewhere.
You don't need acquired capital for your business because you can rent a VPS and generate social media posts cheaply? Here's your sign.
It adds a cognitive burden, and hides the "magic" and prompts three layers deep with agents, to something already cognitively burdensome if you're looping inputs on themselves or calling multiple agents. In my opinion, of course.
https://jstaf.github.io/posts/pglogical/
pglogical is magic. Keeping an eye on this project for the future, looks great.
Human or animal consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that entails the ability to experience subjective states: emotions, self-awareness, etc.. It is not just about processing information but involves the qualitative experiences and the “what it is like” aspect of being.
When humans or animals feel pain, there is a subjective experience of suffering that is inherently tied to consciousness. The importance we assign to events, objects, or experiences is inherently based on how they impact our conscious experiences. The worth of things big or small is contingent upon the emotions or feelings they evoke in us.
In contrast, a regression-based function approximator does not have preferences, emotions, or experiences.
When you decide to lift your hand, there is a conscious experience involved. You have an intention and a subjective experience associated with that action. On the other hand, a regression-based function approximator does not “decide” anything in the experiential sense. It simply produces outputs based on inputs and pre-training and maybe RLHF that adjusted its weights. There is no intention, no subjective experience, and no consciousness involved.
There is no qualia. To put it simply: a LLM could output some text that makes you "believe" it has preferences, and subjective experiences. But there's nothing there. Just cognitive artifacts of human beings from its corpus. Does an LLM have recursive self-improvement? Does it have self-directed goals? Does it have any of that? No. It's a predictor. LLMs are not sentient. They have no agency. They are not consciousness.
If all of that is not convincing to you, consider the following (audio-visual) perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpPjjhJGhk
If Spez had an honest bone in his body, he’d have just said they don’t want the API for third party clients anymore, for the plebs or the “Landed gentry”, and that they want to shift towards the enterprise focus of reselling that firehose of garbage because apparently you can make an LLM out of it! The money has stopped, and we're not profitable, so the time and capital required to add advertisements and targeting to the public API versus whatever crap they’ve built out over the last few years doesn’t make any financial sense.
When they can just sell the firehose of garbage instead. Of course.
It is also my (relatively uninformed) understanding that a perceptron can’t really approximate a “neuron” outside of being inspired by how neurons in the visual cortex operate. For that, you need an a DNN, thus human neurons are orders of magnitude more complex than “artificial neurons” and they only share a name and a slight inspiration.
All of this is just regression based function approximation, in the end, there’s no need to grasp for a ghost in the machine or anything spooky. It’s just statistics, not consciousness.
In fact, at least from my perspective, most of those AI doomers are the “elite” that Kacyinski talks about. They’re looking to control it, have the academics that Kacyinski despises on their side, are good at bullshitting, etc., and a good way to control it and keep power in your hands is to paper over the real risks and perform regulatory capture.
That is to say, they want that system of technological progress to continue, but they want it to continue in a way that is controlled by them, centralization.
So, yes, but no. He absolutely despised those people. To clarify, I don't think you'll find many who want the whole system to stop, the most extreme you find are those who still want the system to continue, but want only “responsible” and “safe” companies to have control over such things, flip flopping between that and the possibility of air striking datacenters if some multi-modal model convinces them that it's sentient.
I'd say they're not even hiding how useless they are. Hell, one of the main criticisms of internal PaLM was that it was not progressive enough and didn't toe the Silicon Valley Democrat party line and thus was racist.
These restrictions are completely arbitrary on the part of Microsoft. Source (My M1 Mac): https://freeimage.host/i/H4PgC5F
The administration sees niche communities as just an annoyance. They're currently exploiting non-English Language oriented communities and sockpuppeting accounts with poor machine translations to build language-specific communities around the Tiktok sewer subreddits.
Congrats to kn0thing, spez, et al. on your "community" "engagement" and good luck on the exit!