cichlisuite
-
Posts
2,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by cichlisuite
-
-
3 hours ago, iococoi said:
This is very well written, and I thoroughly agree. But will we be able to stop the giant grind stone?
-
^lmao, even if they do privatize them, it will be done with taxpayer's money, also for bailing out, etc
-
1
-
-
On 5/5/2023 at 12:55 AM, GORDO said:
I see this as a common misunderstanding. These models are not databases, they don't 'look up' stuff. They're enormously complex formulas whose parameters are 'fitted' with data towards a target objective. It's no different conceptually than finding the best intercept and slope to fit a line through a bunch of points in a plane. The difference is that instead of two parameters you're finding the fit for billions of parameters in an humanly intractable formula. It's statistics on steroids, not databases.
This is why we can't have 'pseudo code' for how they produce their outputs and why we say we don't 'understand' how they work. While we do know *exactly* what the 'formula' is and we know the parameters, it's so immensely big and complicated that there's no point in trying to extract insight from it. There are tho techniques to gain partial understanding on how variation of their inputs produce variations on the outputs and so on.
Whenever I see the argument that they don't posses knowledge I'd argue back that whatever test you can come up for a human to prove knowledge, this thing can do it too.
i didn't say they were databases, i asked if there are components to the whole system, which must(?) include databases... i mean there must be something structured that feeds into this neural network (for learning purposes), it's not gibberish (or is it?) so my question was (is), does it need a structured and organized data set to be able to learn to think of a relevant output, or you can feed it random strings and integers which are only chunks of real data, and from it, it is able to make sense of it by completing the logical gaps by itself? again, i'm asking about the learning process here.
and another thing: once a version of chatgpt is 'taught' something, is this knowledge referenced at some point when the user writes a question in the prompt, or is it performing the entire computation from scratch when the user writes a question in the prompt? i'm sorry if i'm prying, or sounding thick for not getting it...you can ignore me if i annoy you.
QuoteThis is why we can't have 'pseudo code' for how they produce their outputs and why we say we don't 'understand' how they work. While we do know *exactly* what the 'formula' is and we know the parameters, it's so immensely big and complicated that there's no point in trying to extract insight from it. There are tho techniques to gain partial understanding on how variation of their inputs produce variations on the outputs and so on.
so the neural network by ways of structure and recursion is making 'the magic'? do you know what kind of operations (functions) are assigned to an individual node in that structure?
-
1 hour ago, iococoi said:
the future wars will be narrated by a vocal frying valley girl
"the allied forces LiTeRallY outflanked enemy positions, and the enemy was like, "oMG, what's even happening?!", but it was too late." #maneuverwarfare #aiassistedbattlefields
-
3
-
-
-
1 hour ago, J3FF3R00 said:
Set the actual flag on fire and have hardly any other trace of damage
they don't have money for the roof repairs, so the order was to do it gently
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, auxien said:
all true. i think of it like this: if you're a highly educated Shakespeare scholar who's been studying the works and biography etc. for decades, you'd probably be able to answer nearly any question within seconds, recite entire passages of plays or sonnets, etc., much like ChatGPT can currently (i assume). maybe even improvise and write a Shakespearean stanza or whatever, again much like ChatGPT can. but if i threw in a question about quantum electrodynamic calculations into the middle of asking you about Shakespeare, you'd probably have almost zero knowledge...most Shakespeare historians are not also particle phycisicts. ChatGPT however, can do all of it. and anything else, basically. anything else it's been trained on, it's a high level expert at (though, noteworthy is that it's not GREAT at all of these things. yet.)
what i was getting at (and trying to understand myself) was it doesn't actually 'possess' knowledge, more like it fetches from its 'learned' repositories, or indexed registers + the user query sent from the prompt. meaning the real 'knowledge' it has, or is being equipped with, is data mining knowledge that can parse strings (also text recognition module for reading text in images), and recognize contexts and how contexts relate to each other on different levels. i.e. literature - classic - shakespeare - king lear, versus literature -scientific - physics -quantum electrodynamics, etc... meaning that it should understand these levels and the general knowledge trees must be strictly organized somewhere inside chatgpt hq servers.... or is it capable of making 'sense' of unstructured, rudimentary, reduntant, scattered pieces of information?
it would be very interesting to have an insight into a sort of pseudo-code analysis of chatgpt's 'thinking' procedures, and how it stores and caches data. like how the neural-network topology recurses through itself in a way, idk.
Quote
(from GPT-4 is surprisingly good at explaining jokes (freethink.com))
it's so very good at doing things like this, already. it's not perfect, of course. but the amount of examples of 'understanding' and 'reasoning' like this is growing day by day.
that seems pretty impressive, however, if i understand correctly, these are run by separate, optimized versions of chatgpt that cannot relate to each other in terms of being one interconnected entity?
-
1
-
-
i skimmed through the yt links you provided, and my first impression is that he must be a very positive guy with a good sense for party vibezz, but music-wise it's like tik-tok music drop-the-bass-autotune cheesy piano emotions kind of guy, or maybe i'm just old and listen to drexciya too much idk
-
5
-
-
20 hours ago, auxien said:
further notes from Hinton, via the BBC:
Right now, what we're seeing is things like GPT-4 eclipses a person in the amount of general knowledge it has and it eclipses them by a long way. In terms of reasoning, it's not as good, but it does already do simple reasoning," he said.
correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it understandable that GPT "eclipses a person in the amount of general knowledge", since it has direct access to all digitalized knowledge base of humanity and can dig and search through it with immense speed? i mean, it's like you'd ask me "please elaborate on x and y", and then i would consult all the relevant documents and books and provide you with an answer. it would take me a very long time to do it, of course, but a processor can do this much faster. it doesn't require me to be very smart or conscious. nor i can't store all the available human knowledge in my head. hence, it's just a very efficient data mining algorithm that can output an answer in a concise and elaborate way because it was programmed to do so?
-
1
-
-
On 4/29/2023 at 11:57 PM, prdctvsm said:
so glad to hear this. i need to get away once more from this dogmatic corporate science full of hubris and everyday lunacy
just yesterday i was listening to magnetic wire recordings of african tribal songs (vocals), and it seemed to convey something profound and oddly familiar, as if it reached some primal genetic memory of mine. this, along seeing their ritual masks, it reminded me to bring back some balance from this obsessed urbanized technocratic world that surrounds me on a daily basis
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Zooluus said:
There's a place like this by my house that I've always wanted to jump the fence some night to explore and sneak around, pretending i'm solid snake. Looks like it'd be a fun place to take pics.
do it. it's so much fun to sneak in places that are off-limits. but please be safe about it. once i stepped on a rusty nail exploring an abandoned pool house. didn't have my health insurance card on me, so i borrowed one from my friend. it was weirdly funny when the nurse called me by my friend's name. whenever i see a sign on a chain "no admittance" or something i get this urge to sneak past it. like a couple of months ago i was visiting a natural history museum. it was almost empty, just a couple of small groups and two ladies working the entrance and the first floor. i found an old door unlocked, and entered. it was awesome climbing some old creaky stairs and finding old smelly and dark places built 200 years ago full of discarded stuff, staff caffeteria, some old preparation rooms, etc. i visited a castle today, there's a small door leading to an attic, awesome stuff
-
4
-
-
still running win 7
was seriously considering switching to win 10 once i do a hardware upgrade
steam will stop running in w7 in 248 days
win 11 sucks big time
i think win 12 will be even worse with the constant online/login/cloud shit
-
some tender pads
-
aye, the pads, the soul
-
2
-
-
from my recent visit to a stone quarry, sneaked in while it was closed
-
6
-
1
-
-
On 4/17/2023 at 9:41 PM, Squee said:
this is so stupid lmao
-
22 hours ago, Summon Dot E X E said:
There's really no precedent for what's happening now with the hyper-connectedness of the internet, the addictive, soul-destroying power of social media, and the god-like potential of AI which will certainly be wielded by those unworthy of that type of power.
Beware false dichotomies, false tribes, false information, manipulated emotions, and manufactured consent.
I'd add to that, which is probably most important happening right now is the completely untouchable strata of enormous capital holders, virtually exempt from legislation and accountability, that transcended its by-design-and-by-ideology separation from governments, wielding the power of the markets and the power of governments at the same time. Where governments shape its long-term strategy along with the interests of biggest corporations, effectively bypassing all 'rules' (if there ever were any) of the free market and separation of powers. The most recent example of this travesty is probably the race of semiconductor manufacturers against China.
This is what really worries me. In the name of national grand strategy on world stage and inner stability, corporations are playing such a huge role, that the entities are no longer separate, but rather one huge funnel of capital and global power that shape the legislation for the benefit of a nation, and in reality, it's just opening the back door wide open to seize infrastructure at large and even shape diplomatic relations with other (allied) countries, where such national interests are also capital interests, and therefore further expanding into these 'acquired' markets (allied nations) by means of treaties (defense (offense really, i mean c'mon), commerce & manufacturing (taiwan), infrastructure (ukraine) and resources (also ukraine)).
I'm just waiting to see how the west is buying up the entire ukraine by leasing military capability. The bill is getting heavier. You think Ukrainians have the ability to ever pay it all back? It's effectively the end of their sovereignty. I'm not trying to stir in ukraine per-se, just setting a most recent example.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Joyrex said:
as most of these seem to be different kinds of whale sounds, it got me going down the rabbit hole
this is so fascinatingly beautiful
-
1
-
-
Don't listen to them, Mike. Sell your studio and machines and invest into some bitcoin. They say you'd be missing out big time if you don't, just remember to diversify. Make an altcoin and mingle with some bros and celebs, you can then get a role in a Marvel franchise movie. Those are very popular, I bet this means they're good! Then pull some strings and get into politics. I hear that UK prime minister position is a hot cake nowadays. Don't settle for less, man. Aim for the stars, you deserve it!
-
1
-
-
On 3/30/2023 at 4:41 AM, Lewps said:
i love the expressions
-
14 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
digital allows deterministic calculations which are statically defined. analog computation is more than just the low requirements of Turing complete like a digital computer, you can't simulate analog computers with digital
that's more on point and eloquent
-
8 hours ago, cruising for burgers said:
I know shit but you know that there's people/studies that indicate/imply that there's no difference between analog and digital... that, way way deep down, everything ends up being digital... maybe I'm confusing that with time keeping... or maybe I just watched it on a sensationalist bullshit documentary like What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole...
1 hour ago, vkxwz said:What's your reasoning for this? All things we've called intelligent up until this AI stuff is analogue obviously but I don't see any clear reason why we wouldn't be able to create it digitally, if you believe that intelligence arises from the interactions of physical matter then if we were able to adequately simulate that physical matter would that not yield intelligence? Anyway this another case of not having a definition for the word intelligence.
it's a matter of perception and boiling the 'issue' down to the factor that can be most easily worked with. however, there's a problem with digital people. they tend to be so full of themselves sometimes that they forget that all they have is a hammer, so everything is a nail for them. of course you can make approximations and simulate stuff digitally, but it's still just an approximation. even digital sound is basically a sinewave made from choped-up positive/negative increments, just the resolution can be very high, so our 'faulty' ear can't discern the difference. but with the brain, the thing is, no one truly understands how brain/consciousness work, and when you include particle physics/fields, things get even more uncertain (unknown). so in any case, making claims that everything is digital deep down, is simply disregarding a lot, which in the end might make a huge difference (so huge in fact, that one could be simply 100% wrong about the whole thing). sure, i've heard about the claims that the brain is both analogue and digital, but i still believe that is not the case. i mean we don't even have the means (capability) to measure things as they are - so we can't even know how they truly are (heisenberg. so how can we know those claims can be 100% true? things can appear to be dealing with two absolute values (on/off, 1/0, etc). but these are neurons we're talking about, and particle physics. my intuition tells me it's closer to analogue + control voltage kind of thing, with plenty of 'randomness' and 'errors', and simultaneous combinations firing at once, whereas, with digital you cannot truly have simultaneous processing. it's very fast, yes, and it can appear simultaneous when you view it with a certain distance of time resolution, but it's not.
-
15 hours ago, Alcofribas said:
i think it's interesting(?) that such specific discussions of intelligence, knowledge, consciousness, etc. have surrounded this technology. i've yet to see a truly compelling definition of intelligence in play w/r/t AI. it seems that people are just using definitions that have to fit something like "language model" which really involves a lot of question begging imo, very self-serving. i feel like we're all in some kind of philosophy 101 class on day 1 just throwing out our most deep thoughts maaaaaaan.
in a way i feel this is possibly a doomed discussion. the tech field has created a technology they have called "intelligence" and we all feel we must conceptualize this technology as such. then we're branching off into discussing whether the machine is conscious, does it understand, etc. i think this thrusts us into a kind of conceptual paralysis, perpetually back to square one, bc we do not really have a comprehensive picture of intelligence afaik. certainly, the scientific world has not seemed to produce one. and the tech world, well it's full of shit.
in any case i generally see the discussion of intelligence on this topic to be rather one dimensional. it's something like intelligence is just some kind of linear computation in the brain, which is some kind of machine itself. and artificial intelligence just kind of emerges in/from a machine when you feed it enough bits. it's all taking place in a single conceptual dimension. seems to me a lot is left out here!
it seems that calling this tech 'intelligent' is just a selling gimmick for the mr. money bags, and a trend-creating buzz word so the world starts to turn and face it (which in turn generates more interest of capital)
true self-aware intelligence (i believe) is analogue. you can't replicate that with digital technology
-
1
-
AI - The artificial intelligence thread
in General Banter
Posted
Thanks that was informative. Could you say it's a game of elimination of a sort, in a way that it first 'explodes' in contexts and possibilities, and then slowly starts picking up the strongest threads, and the array of contexts and possibilities shrinks, until only one possible solution remains...?