It may be shit but everyone is addicted to it. People who see this negatively and have the power to resist it are not the target audience.
Well that and the fact that they have a company to run and people to pay. Do you seriously believe inference is not profitable, despite evidence to the contrary being everywhere you look?
They are profitable on inference (at least anthropic). Inference is cheap, it’s not susbsidized. It’s training that’s expensive, but if the bubble really does pop then current open source models (which are pretty much sold at inference rate + small margin) will actually go down in price since the cost of hardware will have gone down (assuming less demand for GPUs). Considering that the current best open model is roughly one month behind, we won’t revert to pre-ai anywhere. It’s just too cheap for that.
Still, it’s lovely seeing people spreading misinformation based on something they saw on tiktok years ago. Keep up with the times or don’t spread outdated info.
Balanced compared to most lemmy users, yes, though perhaps less than the average person. If you feel balanced on lemmy, then you are very much an extremist.
My comments seem negative because I only comment on controversial topics, and since I don’t parrot the common opinion around here, it gives them a negative tone. I never bother with the “I agree” comments like everyone loves so much, even when I do agree, because they do not incite discussion.
The truth is, it’s the most balanced people who left. Most people who remain are deep in the echo chamber, which is why it seems more chill: everyone agrees with you and the ones with realistic opinions have left.
I’m not reacting to a meme, I’m reacting to someone spreading lies and everyone swallowing it whole, despite proof to the contrary being publically available. When it’s the other side doing it it’s propaganda, but when it’s yours it’s just a meme?
Just proves my point. You don’t care about the truth behind the tweet, only about how it was twisted to your apparent benefit.
By definition, a “rogue” agent is an agent that behaves in unexpected ways, often damaging. Tell me again how there are no rogue agents?
If you’d used modern agents you’d know they do unexpected, sometimes damaging things on the regular, including the cheap models.
“I don’t understand it, so it must be a lie.”
Go and read the article. Nothing they explain is impossible, you can even reproduce it yourself.
Is this what lemmy has become? Statements like this getting upvoted by hundreds of people is crazy. Nobody here read that article but will happily follow the opinion that’s most cozy to them.
I wasn’t talking about the paper, when I talked about the paper you ignored everything I said and moved in a different direction, which was what I responded to. If you’re wondering about the relevance, perhaps you shouldn’t have brought it up.
Does it matter whether it’s part of it or done immediately after? For all intents and purposes it’s the same thing. Like I said, if the input and outputs are the same, what does it matter how the process works?
From the user’s perspective, where one question results in many inference calls, it would look like the LLM learns while it works, assuming such training would be enabled, which they obviously wouldn’t but could do.
That just creates more questions that it answers. According to this, there is then a threshold, or something missing that would go from “can’t feel pain” to suddently it can. We know that it already replicates a part of the brain’s process, and this author claims that it can’t feel pain because it doesn’t replicate enough. This seems to imply that it’s just a matter of time until they can.
view more:
next ›