Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: psychiatrist for AI (Score 1) 60

LLMs absolutely, without question, do not learn the way you seem to think they do. They do not learn from having conversations. They do not learn by being presented with text in a prompt, though if your experience is limited to chatbots could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that was the case. Neural networks are not artificial brains. They have no mechanism by which they can 'learn by experience'. They 'learn' by having an external program modify their weights in response to the the difference between their output and the expected output for a given input.

This is "absolutely without question" incorrect. One of the most useful properties of LLMs is demonstrated in-context learning capabilities where a good instruction tuned model is able to learn from conversations and information provided to it without modifying model weights.

It might also interest you to know than the model itself is completely deterministic. Given an input, it will always produce the same output. The trick is that the model doesn't actually produce a next token, but a list of probabilities for the next token. The actual token is selected probabilistically, which is why you'll get different responses despite the model being completely deterministic.

Who cares? This is a rather specific and strange distinction without a difference that does not seem to be in any way related to anything stated in this thread. Randomness in token selection impacts the KV matrix which impacts evaluation of subsequent tokens.

Remember that each token is produced essentially in isolation. The model doesn't work out a solution first and carefully craft a response, it produces tokens one at a time, without retaining any internal state between them.

This is pure BS, key value matrices are maintained throughout.

That's a very misleading term. The model isn't on mushrooms. (Remember that the model proper is completely deterministic.)

Again with determinism nonsense.

A so-called 'hallucination' in an LLM's output just means that the output is factually incorrect. As LLMs do not operate on facts and concepts but on statistical relationships between tokens, there is no operational difference between a 'correct' response and a 'hallucination'. Both kinds of output are produced the same way, by the same process. A 'hallucination' isn't the model malfunctioning, but an entirely expected result of the model operating correctly.

LOL see the program isn't malfunctioning it is just doing what it was programmed to do. These word games are pointless.

Comment Re:Still flogging the dead "AI" horse? (Score 1) 60

AI will certainly provide some investors with a great return, while other, less savvy investors, will lose their shirts. But AI is here to stay, it's not going to suddenly disappear because everybody realizes it's a scam. Just as with the dot-com bubble in the 1990s, the AI bubble will burst, leaving behind the technologies that are actually useful.

The dot.com bubble provided value in the form of useful infrastructure investments. When the AI bubble bursts all you are going to be left with are rooms full of densely packed GPUs that will be scrapped and sold off for pennies on the dollar.

I agree completely that it's absurd to suggest that AI will "replace humanity." But that doesn't mean AI (or LLMs specifically) isn't useful.

AI is a tool. Used well, while understanding its limitations, can be a tremendous time-saver. And time is money.

How much of a time saver is it to have a magical oracle at your fingertips that constantly lies to you? How much time is saved when you have to externally cross check everything it says? It only saves "tremendous" time when you can afford not to care about the results.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 39

Most of the opponents are unions.

Good point. So here's a solution to make everyone happy: A precondition for the acquisition of Warner Brothers (by anybody) should be to place WBs current library in the public domain. Then the unions and everyone else will have plenty of work to do creating new content.

After all, isn't this what copyright is supposed to encourage? The creation of new works?

Comment Re:But can Anish Kapoor use it? (Score 1) 51

I think that's a bit of a joke. Isn't Kapoor the guy who thinks he has the exclusive right to develop artwork in stainless steel as well?

Sure, the patent holder of VANTA Black may have accepted money from Kapoor for the right. But that makes Kapoor the idiot. How can one restrict the use of something if it is sold it in rattle-cans?

Comment Re:Also the right wing manipulates elections (Score 1) 81

There seems to be little doubt that the majority of voter suppression in the US comes from the Republican party (see various court cases that have ended up with, for example consent decrees that are later ignored). So, logically, unless they are really, really bad at planning it, it seems pretty clear which way they sway election. Also, consider your claimed position, that claiming a stolen election will sway independent voters away from the party whose members make the claim. Considering all of the activity from the Republicans (and specifically the ones in actual positions of power, like Trump) over claims that the 2020 Presidential election was somehow stolen, compared to the relatively minor activity over claims that the 2024 election was stolen, how do you justify that as a reason for votes to shift towards Republicans to Democrats?

Slashdot Top Deals

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...