691–700 of 723 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you guys compare to codium [0]? Also, any plans to support vim/neovim integration (codium has pretty good support in place [1]). Thanks. [0] - https://www.codium.ai [1] - https://github.com/Exafunction/codeium.vim
Do note that Codium and Codeium are two completely separate companies. They work in related fields but have very different approaches.
This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…
Because it’s not your tool. You just pay to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been working on architectures in this field for almost a decade now and I've seen firshand how things have changed. It might seem hard to believe if you have been to university ~10 years ago and only know the state of deep learning from the early revolutions back then, but we are in a totally different era now. With the transformer, we now have a true general-purpose, efficiently scalable, end-to-end different…
and yet SamA says it's actual trillions of dollars in entirely new compute capacity to reach the next level. hmmm. to believe him or you... so hard to decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you should be allowed to own C4 and machine guns. And you can. Because you can use them in a way that doesnt hurt other people, we as a society allow that.
owning and using are different. try that on the DC Mall and see how well it goes buddy
People use these things all the time without hurting people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think that if the hammer company had a way (that cost them almost nothing) to make sure that the hammer its never used to attack human beings they wouldn't add such feature? I think many would, if anything by pressure of their local goverment or even the competition ("our hammers can't hurt your baby on accident like those other companies!") , but its impossible to add such feature to hammer; so maybe the l…
Actually you kind of could. If you imagine making a normal hammer slightly more squishy, thats pretty similar to what they’re doing with llms. If the squishy hammer hits a person’s head, it’ll do less damage, but it’s also worse for nails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To determine its ability to disambiguate. And to test its sensitivity on safety. Even Mixtral 8x7b running on my laptop correctly disambiguates. That test is a heuristic for how likely I am to encounter the mistaken safety procedure.
I guess if you want to deny yourself top of the line capabilities because you can't ask it poorly worded questions or might occasionally need to clarify intent for the model that's a fair strategy. I'm in the camp that this safety pearl clutching is overblown in both directions: it's embarrassingly easy to overcome their disclaimers.
As an example, these fail to be useful assistants when they stop providing assistance and start redirecting me to "an expert". Claude 2 and below would do that frequently and I found that this test was a quick way to filter out those models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To determine its ability to disambiguate. And to test its sensitivity on safety. Even Mixtral 8x7b running on my laptop correctly disambiguates. That test is a heuristic for how likely I am to encounter the mistaken safety procedure.
I guess if you want to deny yourself top of the line capabilities because you can't ask it poorly worded questions or might occasionally need to clarify intent for the model that's a fair strategy. I'm in the camp that this safety pearl clutching is overblown in both directions: it's embarrassingly easy to overcome their disclaimers.
This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…
It's not about you. It's about Joe Drugdealer who wants to use it to learn how to make meth, or do other nefarious things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people Should I be allowed to own C4 explosives and machine guns? Because I can use C4 explosives in a way that doesn't harm other people by simply detonating it on my private property. I am confused about what the limiting principle is supposed to be here. Do we just allow people to have access to technology of arbitrary power as long as there exist…
Yes you should be allowed to own C4 and machine guns. And you can. Because you can use them in a way that doesnt hurt other people, we as a society allow that.