How can you not reference this gem of an SCP entry?
PS This sounds super interesting, looking forward to try it.
PPS I am waiting for the day when I can run this on my phone.
How can you not reference this gem of an SCP entry?
PS This sounds super interesting, looking forward to try it.
PPS I am waiting for the day when I can run this on my phone.
This looks awesome! Can you share the real life use cases for this? What are you using it for?
Nice! You kinda answered my next question already with this web tool. I was curious if you are getting any useful results from the model itself without feeding it with good data first or relying on hardcoded tools. 4b model must be really dumb for anything even little complicated. I see you recommend to run two models - is it in parallel or the router can control backend and switch models?
"List the article's concrete claims about permit status and turbine operations, each with support."
- EPA position: these turbines require permits under the Clean Air Act.
Not quite though. The article cited EPA's policy as per a former EPA enforcement staffer who was explicitly stating the EPA is not requiring that here and has made rules deferring to the state and local authorities. The guy was saying the EPA should be acting, but isn't. The article was clever with it, but that's all the more reason.
Kind of. It isn't wrong, but it is a crucial omission that it's interviewing a former EPA enforcement guy (i.e. not current) about current enforcement policy, (which is radically changing under Zeldin.) So the model's interpretation on whether the state will hold to federal pressure becomes imprecise since it's really this guy stating there's actually a lack of federal pressure.
But it does rightfully note information is not in the article to answer, which is neat.
Because... for context not directly in the article, technically if EPA defers to the state, then Mississippi saying temporary permit exemption actually applies here satisfies the permit requirement, which Buckheit has to know. (Which directly explains the lack of federal pressure.) Citing the policy in January was a clever non-answer from the EPA. They're actually saying state and federal policies are NOT in conflict.
Also, I'm not trying to dismiss any of this, more trying to provide an insight that might help with accuracy. I have a bit of knowledge on this specific subject, so I thought I'd note a point where I can measure an inaccuracy.
These kinda of articles can be really sneaky about claims and statements. Mostly minor and innocuous, but an LLM doesn't know the difference. Like, this caught that Buckheit is talking about what should be happening under previous admins when he was involved, but that's specifically not what the EPA is doing anymore, which the LLM appears to have missed in part. Which to me, that part was the primary purpose of the article.
Hi! You are still bullshitting us. To understand your own incorrectness, please consider what a chatbot should give as an answer to the following questions which I gave previously, on Lobsters:
The biggest questions in mathematics do not fit nicely into the chatbot paradigm and demonstrate that LLMs lack intelligence (whatever that is). I wrote about Somebody Else's Paper, but it applies to you too:
This attempt doesn't quite get over the epistemological issue that something can be true or false, determined and decided, prior to human society learning about it and incorporating it into training data.
Also, on a personal note, I recommend taking a writing course and organizing your thoughts prior to writing long posts for other people. Your writing voice is not really yours, but borrowed from chatbots; I suspect that you're about halfway down the path that I described previously, on Lobsters. This is reversible but you have to care about yourself.
Last time, when I tried to explain this to you, you decided to use personal insults. Mate, I'm not the one who has eaten your brains. I'm not the one who told you that LLMs can be turned into genies or oracles via system prompts. I'm certainly not the one who told you that RAG solves confabulation. You may have to stop worshipping the chatbot for a moment in order to understand this but I assure you that it is worthwhile.
FYI, I was crossposting the original (I'm not the author). I posted it here as I thought the community may be interested. It may be worth putting your feedback on the original post for the author's attention, although, the tone of your reply is quite argumentative and rude. I'd suggest rewording it, as constructive feedback is more likely to be listenes to and taken on board. I do note this is possibly in reply to the rudeness you mentioned from the author previously, but the way you then approach your reply can change the tone of the conversation (as per beraris box).
This is definitely interesting, a lot of work to setup given I normally just use the built in frontend for llama.cpp though. I also don't use LLMs for anything serious, but I might give it a go. I do love the vodka joke though. When life gives you potato, make vodka.
Very cool. Thank you for sharing. I'll let you know if I find time to give it a try.
top 14 comments