@StarkRG @Some_Emo_Chick my guess is the last thing people who launder money, evade taxes and scam other people care about is the climate.
But glad that grift is over, can't wait to see what the next obvious one is
@Aradiel @erikcats @Some_Emo_Chick LLMs are a solution looking for a problem. You can usually tell by the way it's marketed as being useful for anything and everything while not actually being better than anything that already exists.
Other types of generative AI aren't as bad, though that isn't saying much since LLMs are the literal worst. There are, at least, a handful of cases where they have advantages over existing solutions, but they still need a lot of handholding.
@Aradiel @erikcats @Some_Emo_Chick Google search results have been terrible for at least a decade. I switched to DuckDuckGo a few months ago. I have a few complaints about functionality (removing a search term using minus doesn't work) and the search results aren't as good as Google's was in the early 2000s, but it's much better than it is now.
I've used Windows as my daily driver for two years out of the last two decades, I'm always highly annoyed when I have to use it for anything.
@erikcats @Aradiel @Some_Emo_Chick I generally assume everything like that is greenwashing. I always wonder where the money comes from and where it goes. If it isn't obvious, It probably is.
Also "carbon neutral" is a marketing lie. You can't pay someone to plant trees in Indonesia while polluting in Canada and expect it all to work out. Not to mention that almost all carbon absorbed by plants is released when they die and decompose. Carbon sequestration is the only real solution.
@Aradiel @StarkRG @Some_Emo_Chick oh my fucking god that's the generative text stuff ChatGPT runs on
I know everyone is using it but it hurts my linguist heart to see one of the core activities of human functioning be outsourced to garbage protocols
@Aradiel @erikcats @Some_Emo_Chick An example is ChatGPT.
To expand on that, it stands for large language model. It creates an internal model of a language using the aforementioned stolen text and uses it to predict what word comes next. It's basically autocorrect with extra hallucinations.
@StarkRG @Aradiel @Some_Emo_Chick Ahhh Large Language Model
Madafakas gonna use AI to give names to things now, I see
@erikcats
LLM was trained by "looking" at text and finding patterns and rules. The original text itself is not stored in the trained model. Only the patterns which has been found. LLM is creating text word for word. Always calculating the most probable word based on all the words preceding it.
Summary: The created text by LLM is a patchwork of guessing and not a copy of information.
Why would someone train a LLM only on one news article? And the question would be, is this enough training data for the LLM to create meaningful sentences afterward.
Nice thought. 😀 But often relations are not linear dependent on each other. Your example could lead to overfitting (point proved) or underfitting (point missed).
I added a screenshot for the explanation of overfitting and underfitting.
@seismographix @StarkRG @erikcats @Some_Emo_Chick getting into a grey area here, but in my view, copied data that is corrupted in copying is still copied (in this case it's the transformation corrupting it)
Eg. Download two files, which are 1s and 0s. Shuffle them together
You can't get either file back out, but you still copied them in the first place
A better analogy is, that you copied two files with text and then the AI is analyzing them. As a result, you will get a joint statistics report, which is not distinguishing between both files. There are no individual statistics for each file. When the original files are deleted, you cannot recreate them from the statistics. But you can mimic written text in general.
Of course, the training input must be from free sources. And it would be correct to let people decide if they want to contribute to the training data.
You can check it out. At least for the open source LLMs. And one important thing, someone has to ensure that the training data has the right quality. Misspelled YouTube comments are not the appropriate training data. The quality verification is a tedious work.
You can experience it yourself, when contributing to this open-source LLM:
https://open-assistant.io/de
@seismographix @Aradiel @StarkRG @Some_Emo_Chick just to be clear, I do not have any it training.
What I do have is big fat question marks with the idea you seem to be trying to push that there is a thing such as a standard for ethically trained AI. What you're saying sounds both extremely rare and extremely against the grain of an Economic model where taking value and returning as little as possible is the industry standard
I do not disagree. You have definitely to check the business plan of the organization, you want to contribute to.
But the LAION-5B training data set, for example, is managed by “LAION gemeinnütziger e.V.”, which is a German non-profit association. Such association must register with the German administration. There are obligations for them to fulfill. When the association dissolves, they have to hand over the assets to the public.
It is not text only, but here is the image and text database LAION-5B. https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/
@StarkRG
Personally I use chatGPT to learn and explore, transform text formats, etc.
But I also dislike people publishing novels written with AI on Amazon trying to make quick money without any effort on their own.
@Aradiel
The result of looking at text is stored per word. The word Pizza for example would look like this [132,235,793,526,...,888]. Every number is the value of the word regarding a rule detected by the AI. Example: mean distance to the next adverb.
It is like a person had read a lot of books. When he/she is writing the output will be based on her/his knowledge reading books.
@Aradiel @StarkRG @Some_Emo_Chick yeah my toot last night got me thinking of all the AI startups.
But this here is very much my feeling, I'm neither afraid nor impressed by AI