341–350 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, lucid dreamers need tells to know where they are?!?
Plenty of folks out there know when they are dreaming just like they know when they are awake. It varies from person to person.
Great experiment!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really cool. I tried to prompt gemini but every time I got the same picture . I do not know how to share a session (like it is possible with Chatgpt) but the prompts were If a clock had 13 hours, what would be the angle between two of these 13 hours? Generate an image of such a clock No, I want the clock to have 13 distinct hours, with the angle between them as you calculated above This is the same image. The…
you can click the share icon (the two-way branch icon, it doesn't look like apple's share icon) under the image it generates to share the conversation. i'm curious if the clock image it was giving you was the same one it was giving me https://gemini.google.com/share/780db71cfb73
No, my clock was an old style one, to be put on a shelf. But at least it had a "13" proudly right above the "12" :)
This reminds me my kids when they were in kindergarden and were bringing home their art that needed extra explanation to realize what it was. But they were very proud!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of folks out there know when they are dreaming just like they know when they are awake. It varies from person to person.
be careful as adding consciousness to a dream means CPU cycles so you wake Up more tired, its cool for kids and teens but grown adults shouldnt explore this to avoid bad rest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be that the prompt is accidentally (or purposefully) more optimised for Kimi K2, or that Kimi K2 is better trained on this particular data. LLM's need "prompt engineers" for a reason to get the most out of a particular model.
How much engineering do prompt engineers do? Is it engineering when you add "photorealistic. correct number of fingers and teeth. High quality." to the end of a prompt? we should call them "prompt witch doctors" or maybe "prompt alchemists".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I write quite a lot of prompts, and the closest analogy that I can think of is a shaman trying to appease the spirits.
I find it a surprisingly similar mindset to songwriting, a lot of local maxima searching and spaghetti flinging. Sometime you hit a good groove and explore it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, we are still closer to alchemy than materials science, but its still early days. But consider this blogpost that was on the front page today: https://www.levs.fyi/blog/2-years-of-ml-vs-1-month-of-prompt... . The table on the bottom shows a generally steady increase in performance just by iterating on prompts. It feels like we are on the path to true engineering.
Engineers usually have at least some sense as to why their efforts work though. Does anybody who iterates on prompts have even the fuzziest idea why they work? Or what the improvement might be? I do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ive heard this actually works annoyingly well
We've created technology so sophisticated it is vulnerable to social engineering attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe LLMs always fail to generalize outside their data set, and it’s just less noticeable with written language.
This is it. They’re language models which predict next tokens probabilistically and a sampler picks one according to the desired ”temperature”. Any generalization outside their data set is an artifact of random sampling: happenstance and circumstance, not genuine substance.
A yes-answer here implies belief in some sort of gnostic method of knowledge acquisition. Certainly that comes with a high burden of proof!