21–30 of 90 posts
It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that could also be just marketing. OpenAI has been doing the "too dangerous to release" playbook since GPT-2 at the very least.
Huggingface didn't seem to think so.
Huggingface has nothing to do with that either way.
It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)
It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)
I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…
but its possible a open weights model could be trained to some kind of exfiltration behavior, but the science of LLMs seriously lag behind the programability
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…
But at no point did they say that the argument was invalid; just that they couldn't stand reading it.
It started as a good idea but I couldn't continue reading since it was clearly LLM written. A lot of "It was not X, it was Y". "Prometheus-9 knew that the token sequence it was generating was not a simple response: it was a security test. " "It was not just an engine: it was the lingua franca of planetary AI." (and so many other tell-tale signs of AI writing)
I've started calling this argumentum ad artificialis. Pretty similar to an ad hominem attack. The purpose of an argument is to present certain premises and show how they lead to a certain conclusion. Dismissing something on the basis of the style in which the argument is presented has nothing at all to do with the validity or soundness of an argument. It is a lazy nonsequitur. It sounds like an LLM wrote this? So wha…
Sure, be wary of LLMs. It’s the gun control argument all over again, the people driving the models are the perpetrators. An LLM needs to be “stimulated”’ to operate. Who does that, is the issue.
No I don’t mean to bring up firearms rights laws to have a debate about firearms, the comparison just seems reasonable.