throwaway1851

6 ms·

1.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
I’ve had opiates for wisdom tooth extraction and a couple of relatively minor but very painful injuries. I was very glad to have them. They made the experiences much more bearable. I did not experience any addiction issues, and I’m glad tha
2.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
If you've reviewed the facts in this case, and that's what you took from it, then I seriously question your reading comprehension ability.
3.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
And, with that, we’re back to pre-LLM chatbot design: intent classification, entity extraction, business logic, return a result. Only the whole process rests on a more rickety foundation. It’s also bloated and slow, querying an LLM over and
4.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
Bard hasn’t been using Google’s best language models. I believe it just got an upgrade, however, and I’m now getting output that is significantly more coherent and useful than ChatGPT’s. It’s also a helluva lot faster, though that could ow
5.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
That’s only going to get you so far. Sparsely represented subjects have have an actual reality you’re trying to model. So while yes, you can generate synthetic data to interpolate between the points that have already been sampled, whether t
6.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
Especially weird since SFO is not in San Francisco.
7.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
OpenAI’s fear-mongering efforts have been really transparent. As an example, in the ABC News piece, one of their employees discusses asking GPT to help build a bomb. Your employees using words like “bomb” on television is not something that
8.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
OpenAI explicitly disclaims ownership interest in the model outputs. A user who both generates outputs from OpenAI AND uses it to train a “foundational” model that competes with OpenAI could owe contract damages. Other parties? I simply d
9.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
I think a review of the state of frontend tooling will show that efficiency with respect to developer hours is not a widely shared priority. I only say this with only 50% intention of starting a flame war.
10.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
> It gets basic facts wrong and often times misunderstands what I'm trying to ask it. In haven’t tried Bard, but I’ve tried ChatGPT extensively and this sounds like a very good description of it.
11.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
Any news on whether they're pursuing downstream weights? That's a really interesting question for me - if you started at the LLaMA weights and arrived somewhere else by supplying additional training data and computation, any infri
12.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
It’s not a lazy refrain, it’s a serious downside of the technology. It’s tiring and stressful to supervise the work product of an assistant that is extremely capable sometimes, but a compulsive bullshitter at other times. Just as it’s tirin
13.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
A concern I have about OpenAI is that, if you're using their APIs to develop an application, they can mine your data to compete with you, or even beat you to market. They can do this indirectly, by sharing information with preferred bu
14.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
OpenAI disclaims ownership interest in the model output. If a subscriber (who has a contractual relationship with OpenAI) chooses to generate outputs that could be used to train a competing model, and chooses to share those outputs with t
15.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
A language model takes in a sequence of tokens and outputs a probability (0-1) for each token in the vocabulary (the set of all tokens the model knows). Based on this probability distribution, there are various sampling strategies that can
16.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
If we continue on this trajectory, I have a suspicion that the big players will increasingly cry “danger!” and, as Sam Altman has done already, call for government regulation of AI. Having potential upstarts buried in red tape is how monop
17.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
Hm. I haven’t tried the local installs yet. However, when the Alpaca web demo was live, I did find it to be comparable (though not quite as capable) to davinci-003. It answered arbitrary factual questions about pop culture references, law,
18.
by throwaway1851 3y ago
I don’t put much stock in the claims about GPT4 “passing” professional exams. Many copies of previously administered exams are available, and the exams are formulaic in their construction (to make them stable, predictable targets). A compre
19.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Well, consider the source. These are the same people who withheld measly little GPT2 because it was too dangerous for the grubby masses. They profess to have all of this concern for the “safety” of their new technology, yet are simultaneou
20.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
$100. “For our initial run, fine-tuning a 7B LLaMA model took 3 hours on 8 80GB A100s, which costs less than $100 on most cloud compute providers. We note that training efficiency can be improved to further reduce the cost.” ($500 was what
21.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
It’s a really thorny set of issues. I remember reading a discussion recently about gender bias in coreference resolution. (Coreference resolution is the task of linking words such as “him” or “her” or “the company” to other words in a text,
22.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
I read it. I’d call it a press release.
23.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
I’ve been playing with the Alpaca demo, and I’m really impressed! The outputs are generally excellent, especially for a model of that size, fine tuned on a $100 (!!) compute budget. If the cloud of uncertainty around commercial use of deri
24.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Sorry. I wasn’t characterizing your comment; I was going off on a bit of a tangent.
25.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Yes. When I read comments such as “humans just predict the next word too,” I wonder if those commenters have ever stopped and observed their own thought processes before.
26.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
> mumbling about cynicism instead of engaging with the point made I was leaving it in the subtext, but in case it wasn’t clear: I don’t think the “point” made reflected anything resembling analysis, and therefore deserved no engagement.
27.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Well, trade secret law requires the owner of the trade secret to take steps to keep it... secret. Facebook has done the opposite, and they haven’t made the people they distributed the weights to sign an NDA.
28.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Cynicism isn't interchangeable with critical thinking.
29.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
The analogy is meant to show that, while it’s possible to raise deep philosophical questions based on superficial or trivial observations, it can also also be quite silly to do that.
30.
by throwaway1851 4y ago
Judging from a lot of the commentary on this subject, it appears to me that a surprising number of people think that reality is little more than a quaint idea.

More ›