▲ 72 ▼ Why your local LLM feels dumber than it is (forum.level1techs.com) submitted 2 months ago by inari@piefed.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world 103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (6 children) I work in tech permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) As far as understanding the technology goes? It makes me more qualified than 99% of the AI glazers I encounter, but you may be an exception. To say that an LLM is “less dumb” is a misnomer tho, because it implies that the LLM is “thinking” rather than “calculating”. My issue here is the anthropomorphic language being used to intentionally mislead people who don’t have even a tertiary understanding of the underlying mechanics. Surely you know that under the hood it’s all just algorithms. 1s and 0s run through a fluctuating probability equation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous. You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers). All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works. People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so. Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic. You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from. Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) Uh huh... That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) As far as understanding the technology goes? It makes me more qualified than 99% of the AI glazers I encounter, but you may be an exception. To say that an LLM is “less dumb” is a misnomer tho, because it implies that the LLM is “thinking” rather than “calculating”. My issue here is the anthropomorphic language being used to intentionally mislead people who don’t have even a tertiary understanding of the underlying mechanics. Surely you know that under the hood it’s all just algorithms. 1s and 0s run through a fluctuating probability equation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous. You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers). All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works. People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so. Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic. You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from. Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (4 children) As far as understanding the technology goes? It makes me more qualified than 99% of the AI glazers I encounter, but you may be an exception. To say that an LLM is “less dumb” is a misnomer tho, because it implies that the LLM is “thinking” rather than “calculating”. My issue here is the anthropomorphic language being used to intentionally mislead people who don’t have even a tertiary understanding of the underlying mechanics. Surely you know that under the hood it’s all just algorithms. 1s and 0s run through a fluctuating probability equation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous. You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers). All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works. People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so. Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic. You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from. Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) Surely you know that under the hood we're all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we're going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision. You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the "1s and 0s" of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It's like saying plants can't be alive because they don't have brains. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous. You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers). All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works. People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so. Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic. You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from. Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous. You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers). All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works. People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so. Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic. You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from. Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Sorry, 'h0tbeef', I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have. Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you're absolutely right as always. You're so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified. If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot. permalink fedilink source parent