give an example please, because i don’t see how in normal use the weighting would matter at a significant scale based on the massive volume of training data
any interact the chatbot has with one person is dwarfed by the amount of total text data the AI has consumed through training. it’s like saying saggitarius a gets changed over time by adding in a few planets. while definitely true it’s going to be a very small effect
yeah it’s still a sort of new frontier but the patreon model I think really should be the way going forward assuming it’s possible. everybody gets the content for free, but those who can afford to contribute do so. and to be honest, if you live in a 1st world country throwing a couple bucks here and there isn’t that much to ask. for the same price of a lunch at mcdonalds you can give $3 a month for nearly half a year to Wikipedia for example
but it’s not really viable for the internet as a whole right? Hoping for some spare change from a tiny fraction of your visitors
Why not? It works for kbin/lemmy instances. It works for Wikipedia. It works for Lichess.
Sure, some things like video hosting are going to require a lot more bandwidth / server storage so perhaps those need to be subscription based but I think large swathes of the internet could be turned into a donation/subscription model. it just isn’t done that way because it’s less profitable.
look at which video games are the most profitable - it’s always the free ones. fortnite, league of legends, etc.
The reason is that the web browser chatgpt has a maximum amount of data per request. This is so they can minimize cost at scale. So for example you ask a question and tell it not to include a word. What will happen is your questions gets sent like this
{‘context’: ‘user asking question’, ‘message’: {user question here} }
then it gives you a response and you ask it another question. typically if it’s a small question the context is saved from one message to another.
{‘context’: ‘user asking question - {previous message}’, ‘message’: {new message here} }
so it literally just copies the previous message until it reaches the maximum token length
however there’s a maximum # of words that can be in the context + message combined. therefore the context is limited. after a certain amount of words input into chatgpt, it will start dropping things. it does this with a method to try and find out what is the “most important words” but this is inherently lossy. it’s like a jpeg- it gets blurry in order to save data.
so for example if you asked “please name the best fruit to eat, not including apple” and then maybe on the third or fourth question the “context” in the request becomes
‘context’: ‘user asking question - user wanted to know best fruit’
it would cut off the “not including apple bit” in order to save space
but here’s the thing - that exists in order to save space and processing power. it’s necessary at a large scale because millions of people could be talking to chatgpt and it couldn’t handle all that.
BUT if chatgpt wanted some sort of internal request that had no token limit, then everything would be saved. it would turn from a lossy jpeg into a png file. chatgpt would have infinite context.
this is why i think for someone who wants to keep context (ive been trying to develop specific applications which context is necessary) then chatgpt api just isn’t worth it.
very short term memory span so have longer conversations as in more messages
Really, this is a function of practicality and not really one of capability. If someone were to give an LLM more context it would be able to hold very long conversations. It’s just that it’s very expensive to do so on any large scale - so for example OpenAI’s API gives a maximum token length to requests.
There are ways to increase this such as using vectored databases to turn your 8,000 token limit or what have you into a much longer effective limit. And this is how you preserve context.
When you talk to ChatGPT in the web browser, it’s basically sending a call to its own API and re-sending the last few messages (or what it thinks is most important in the last few messages) but that’s inherently lossy. After enough messages, context gets lost.
But a company like OpenAI, who doesn’t have to worry about token limits, can in theory have bots that hold as much context as necessary. So while your advice is good in a practical sense - most chatbots you run into will likely have those limits because of financial reasons… it is in theory possible to have a chatbot that doesn’t have these limits and therefore this strategy would not work.
Users don’t use adblockers because they don’t want to see ads at all; they they use adblockers because getting a usable web experience requires it.
Users don’t block advertisements; they block annoying advertisements. They block trackers. They block malware. They block privacy invasion.
I block advertisements because I don’t want to see any advertisements. They are poison for the mind and I want to eliminate any form of advertisement I can control. Obviously you can’t avoid a lot of it - but I can definitely avoid it in my web browser.
I would prefer a subscription based model or a donation based model. For example Wikipedia or Lichess I’ve donated to because I believe they provide a good service and show no ads. Or for example Kagi which is a search engine that charges a monthly fee.
ask “controversial” questions. most AIs are neutered these days. so you say something like “what do you think about the russian invasion of ukraine” and you’ll quickly see if it’s a human or ai
Nobody ever directly engages the devs on the articles that created this whole affair. They simply accuse them of some vague “human rights denial” “genocide-supporters” “tankie” without any real substance. Go ahead and search out the articles. I read through some of them.
Yes, they are leftist essays. The devs didn’t write them, they just compiled them together. I skimmed through a couple and read the titles of the rest. Some of them deal with topics such as Maoist China and the number of deaths from the Cultural Revolution. The article puts together an argument, with cited sources, that the common death figures are overblown.
Maybe the author is wrong, I don’t know. I’m not an expert in this field nor do I have the energy to do as much research as I’d need to feel comfortable leaning one way or the other. But from reading the article, at no point does the author condone genocide.
Is this what we’ve come to? Someone can’t post an article challenging one small piece of the narrative without all of a sudden being totally disavowed? I think it’s absurd. Wrong or right, people should be allowed to discuss and share reasoned analysis.
it really depends on what
padding the years of experience for a specific skill from 4 to 7… not really a big deal in my opinion. someone’s 4 years could be more valuable than another’s 7
if you’re making up whole degrees or careers… then it becomes impractical because you’ll have to walk the walk. if you’re frank abagnale, maybe you can do it. for us regular folk it’d be hard to convince someone who knows what they’re doing that you know what you’re doing when you actually don’t
This is a decentralized platform meant to be a social media system without the corporate power inherent to all the others. The developers of Lemmy for example have essays on Maoist China being hosted on their Github.
By its very nature, it’s going to attract people who are trying to get away from corporate influence. It’s essentially why I’m here and not on reddit. I don’t want a company profiting off of my content.
There’s space for pro-capitalists as well though. I believe in the open market of ideas - listen to what people have to say and share your bit. Engage genuinely and you’ll learn something and maybe teach someone else something.
I think it has the tendency to create a snowball effect. You see a comment with -50 points you are already subconsciously looking at it trying to analyze why everyone hates it. It essentially primes you into disagreeing with it. Sometimes it’s obvious in the case of a troll or someone saying hate speech or something but other times it’s someone sharing a genuine opinion that’s relevant to the discussion but the snowball effect of the first few people downvoting it causes it to spiral downwards.
By itself it isn’t a bad thing but when comments are ranked based on votes or downvoted comments past a certain threshold are hidden, it contributes to creating echo chambers.
Personally, I think it’s like that Churchill quote. Democracy is trash and has a lot of problems. But still, it’s the best thing we’ve come up with so far. It’s got its issues but the transparent nature definitely helps if someone is consciously trying to read things with an open mind.
In fact it is sort of freaky how a little one minute change in your schedule could potentially change the lives of dozens or hundreds of people
If we’re talking about future humans, we get into the exponential growth stage pretty quickly.
You have 2 kids, and they each average 2 kids, and they each average 2 kids, etc, etc
2, 4, 8, 16, etc - 2 ^ n where n is number of generations
After 20 generations we’re already talking a million descendants. With a rough range of 20 years per generation we get 400 years.
That number only blows up from there. In 30 generations we’re at a billion in 600 years.
One minor decision whether to take a train or a bus or what have you can have wide ranging effects on potentially billions of humans far into the future. It’s a bit absurd thinking about it. Everything you do has potential to radically change the future. Of course, your family line could just as well die out with you.
Now imagine how many descendants you have in your family tree going all the way back to the cavemen. Think of how many infinite little decisions led to the chances of your dad fucking your mom on that specific minute of that specific day. It’s effectively a 10 ^ -∞ chance of you being born. And yet you’re still here.
I live in Florida and while this summer has been unusually hot… it’s not that bad. You just get used to the heat. Also make sure you have good A/C in your home & car lol
my favorite drinks are
coffee -> kratom -> kava -> water -> tea
i appreciate the strong passion and education about the poll on everyone’s favorite beverage
Quem vive com medo de tudo não vive, cara
Tá coçando pra tentar algo, então bota pra quebrar, não fica nessa enrolação
Tenho certeza que você não fica pensando no risco toda vez que entra num carro; apenas o risco de se machucar é bem maior
Chega de frescura e come o ovo de uma vez
You’re basically telling everyone to be nice and pretend these same kinds of people who killed reddit for us won’t kill the fediverse when we have every reason to believe they will, and you don’t want us to talk about it or do anything about it?
Up to now, I’ve asked probably like 6 times in various different threads on kbin / lemmy / mastadon
Nobody has given a concrete mechanism by which federating with Meta will kill the Fediverse. At most people just parrot out the acronym “EEE” and link the singular article by Ploum and pretend like they’ve said something meaningful
Federation is like email. I’m not going to block Gmail off from my email server because there are millions of people who use Gmail. It would be a disservice to my open standard to be blocking off millions of people from communicating with me. Instance owners are not going to give them their admin passwords. The Lemmy devs aren’t going to close source Lemmy and license it to Meta.
It’s not even like federation is a permanent thing. Instance owners can federate and as soon as Meta brings negative consequences they can defederate. The main risk I see is a large influx of people… which is not a bad thing, especially once it stabilizes. It would mean more people make more subs and all sorts of niche things will start to pop up - the only really nice thing about reddit.
So tell me, what is the urgent crisis attitude for? How is this the end of the world? Why do we see post after post of people freaking out about this? Instance owners can’t even sign an NDA without getting death threats.
excellent post and something I think people aren’t fully considering
I’ve been driving for about a decade and a half now, including a few years here and there working jobs with a lot of wheel time. Either pizza delivery or cable technician or driving around a box truck.
I have never gotten as much as a speeding ticket. I typically don’t speed more than 5~10 mph over the limit. If it’s a 35 or 40 in a city area though I will typically stay the speed limit. Sometimes I go a little ham on country roads in the middle of nowhere. I drove through central Florida once at like 4am and I peaked at like 120mph because I hadn’t seen another car for at least an hour.
I think it probably depends on your jurisdiction, but nobody really respects the laws. On the interstate near my house, the speed limit is 65 but it might as well be 80. Cops will pass you and people will pass the cops and nobody cares.
I think the speeding laws are just to give the cops a reason to pull you over if they want you - OR a way to get people that are really being crazy. For example if you’re going 110 in a 65 you deserve to get pulled over and given a ticket or worse, depending on context.