![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://feddit.uk/pictrs/image/628ede8e-54d9-4c64-8a37-9a98a20bb5c0.png)
Literally Jorjor Well
Literally Jorjor Well
Militants like the Taliban?
So from this graph we can say that with all the government help they receive pensioners are about as poor as working people without kids. And that’s bad. Pensioners should be poorer than working people
Pensioners have it too good? Is that the line here?
What tankies are defending Wagner? Any examples?
Source?
Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!
If he has now got supreme power couldn’t he just declare that the president doesn’t have supreme power, and hey presto it’s gone?
Maybe I misunderstood the OP? Idk
People sometimes act like the models can only reproduce their training data, which is what I’m saying is wrong. They do generalise.
During training the models are trained to predict the next word, but after training the network is always effectively interpolating between the training examples it has memorised. But this interpolation doesn’t happen in text space but in a very high dimensional abstract semantic representation space, a ‘concept space’.
Now imagine that you have memorised two paragraphs that occupy two points in concept space. And then you interpolate between them. This gives you a new point, potentially unseen during training, a new concept, that is in some ways analogous to the two paragraphs you memorised, but still fundamentally different, and potentially novel.
Not an ELI5, sorry. I’m an AI PhD, and I want to push back against the premises a lil bit.
Why do you assume they don’t know? Like what do you mean by “know”? Are you taking about conscious subjective experience? or consistency of output? or an internal world model?
There’s lots of evidence to indicate they are not conscious, although they can exhibit theory of mind. Eg: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.08708.pdf
For consistency of output and internal world models, however, their is mounting evidence to suggest convergence on a shared representation of reality. Eg this paper published 2 days ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07987
The idea that these models are just stochastic parrots that only probabilisticly repeat their training data isn’t correct, although it is often repeated online for some reason.
A little evidence that comes to my mind is this paper showing models can understand rare English grammatical structures even if those structures are deliberately withheld during training: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19827
Words aren’t real, we can spell them however we want. Don’t be weird.
Yes, you’re a very good boy, and we’re all proud of you.
You’re such a fucking hero. I wish we were all as brave as you.
“The new book has, for lack of a better term, completely screwed over my fanfiction”
“These books live and die by their fanfiction. For the authors not to coordinate with the fanfic writers is a disgrace”
Lmao. “Russia did Brexit” “Actually it was a referendum. People wanted it” “Be silent!”
Truly one of our greatest minds.
It was a referendum. People are were asked “do you want to leave the EU” and the majority of people said “yes”. The British people have no one to blame but themselves.
I still don’t get why no one has murdered the CEO or ExxonMobil
Boo