511–520 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the elitist mindset I’m talking about.
It is, but you are not really answering the question. Just calling a mindset names does not make it wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once hypothetically saved a few dozen colleagues from dying in a fire. All of these people had at least a degree and many were educated to PhD. The fire alarm sounded and at the bottom of a stairwell the exit door would not release until someone operated the emergency release break-glass panel. But none of these educated people grasped that. Worse still, none of them thought to use a nearby heavy steel trolley as a…
> none of them thought to use a nearby heavy steel trolley as a battering ram It has been my experience that most people will freeze up more or less in an emergency. Some people will become completely catatonic, while others "just" lose 40 IQ points and start focusing on unimportant stuff ("I should clean my room" when there's a fire). Some rare individuals are naturally calm in an emergency. I'm not one of those, bu…
I'm a bit worried the LLaMA leak will make the labs much more cautious about who they distribute models to for future projects, closing down things even more. I've had tons of fun implementing LLaMA, learning and playing around with variations like Vicuna. I learned a lot and probably wouldn't have got so interested in this space if the leak didn't happen.
If the copyright office determines model weights are uncopyrightable (huge if), then one might imagine any institutional leak would benefit everyone else in the space. You might see hackers, employees, or contractors leaking models more frequently. And since models are distilled functionality (no microservices and databases to deploy), they're much easier to run than a constellation of cloud infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> none of them thought to use a nearby heavy steel trolley as a battering ram It has been my experience that most people will freeze up more or less in an emergency. Some people will become completely catatonic, while others "just" lose 40 IQ points and start focusing on unimportant stuff ("I should clean my room" when there's a fire). Some rare individuals are naturally calm in an emergency. I'm not one of those, bu…
People who are calm and composed in chaos had that as a natural state growing up, hence when shit hits the fan these folks feel at ease and ready to do what's needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, but you are not really answering the question. Just calling a mindset names does not make it wrong.
The elitist mindset of expressing disgust at “low IQ” people is wrong. Please do link some sources proving the necessity of only “high IQ” populace, and how that’s sustainable as a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elitist mindset of expressing disgust at “low IQ” people is wrong. Please do link some sources proving the necessity of only “high IQ” populace, and how that’s sustainable as a society.
We are the high IQ society. Animal populations are pretty dumb and relatively speaking non-functional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is such a thing as a text only GPT-4 lol. It wasn't trained to be multimodal from scratch. First a text only version was trained and then it was made multimodal somehow ( the details are unknown but making a text only LLM multimodal isn't new e.g Palm, Flamingo, Blip-2, Fromage). The text only version exists and is what the microsoft researchers had access to.
That would make sense to me, but AFAIK the existence of text-only trained GPT-4 is not publicly reported? Or I missed this.
It's a good video for understanding GPT-4 as a "What are we sure that LLMs are technically capable of?" exercise. As he notes in the video right at the start, the model was made safe and thus has significantly lower performance in the public release, so the examples he shows aren't replicable in the different model the public has access to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has the ability to reason. It may not be conscious, but it is intelligent.
That's not an answer. The given question is one which requires some spatial reasoning to understand. By default, GPT can only understand spatial questions as described by text tokens which is a pretty noisy channel. So it's not obvious how GPT-4 could answer a spatial reasoning question (aside from memorizing it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, how does GPT-4 even... Does it benefit from its visual attention, or is it a case of "the question wasn't in GPT-3's training set but it was in GPT-4's"?
The GPT models do not reason or hold models of any reality. They complete text chunks by imitating the training corpus of text chunks. They're amazingly good at it because they show consistent relations between semantically and/or syntactically similar words. My best guess about this result is mentions of "mirror" often occur around opposites (syntax) in direction words (semantics). Which does sound like a good trick…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are the high IQ society. Animal populations are pretty dumb and relatively speaking non-functional.
It’s hilarious when one is deep in an HN thread and the original point is completely missing.