"We run Arch btw, Carol"

I'm sure everyone will have varying opinions on it, but if these models were fully open-sourced I'd have less of an issue. What does it for me is that these companies were unwilling to pay creators to use their work in the training data, instead choosing to pirate it to create expensive and locked down AI products which they expect us to pay for.

Oh no, the corporations which stole immeasurable quantities of our data to train their for-profit AI models are having their building materials stolen. My heart bleeds.

And don't forget the incredible soundtrack from Max Richter

Have you considered that maybe he just works 1-10 billion times harder than the rest of us, and therefore earned that money fair and square?

/s

No-one was prepared for the Starlink re-entry events. Humanity had been so busy looking outwards, but had failed to look upwards. From 2035, they had to learn to accept the regular and devastating reentry of this fleet of miniature satellites. Molten fire would rain from the sky, multiple times per day at any time or place. Many cities were destroyed during this period, with too many deaths to count.

Hantavirus uses Arch, btw

It's obviously a race condition in the simulation software. The stars database is loaded before the c constant.

This will be patched in a future update, however current simulation will need a data wipe for the updated behaviour to show.

The only comfort I take from your reply is that you lost a little bit before me

Is this necessarily true? I remember seeing an article a while back suggesting that prompting "do not hallucinate" is enough to meaningfully reduce the risk of hallucinations in the output.

From my fairly superficial understanding of how LLMs work, "don't do X" will plot a completely different vector for the "X" semantic dimension than prompting "do X". This is different to telling a human, for example, to not think about elephants (congratulations, you're now thinking about elephants. Aren't they cute. Look at that little trunk and smiley mouth)

Sure, but that position reduces to solipsism, because then you don't exist with a definite value until I look at you, either. But clearly you are thinking definite thoughts when I'm not looking, right?

Wait are we supposed to continue existing when you're not looking at us? Shit my bad

Thanks Claude. Still doesn't seem to be working though as the corners on the object are in a different place to the corners on the hole. It's like they're rotated. Can you break this down for me, step by step? Or is this impossible?