> Why, when no first world nation does the same?

Because first world nations are spending their own money. These nations are not; They are soliciting funds from others, and the lenders would like to know where the money is going.

Regardless of the bullshit you clearly believe about how these projects are funded domestically, this ask seems entirely reasonable.
=Smidge=

If they want us to try their coin, they should hand out some free samples.

He comes up with the most mind-bogglingly stupid ideas based on how twisted his conception of reality has gotten. Basically, in his reality, news articles are probable lies, but people who get lots of likes on Twitter are probable truths.

Good to see we're abandoning the premise that the logic behind LLMs is "simple".

LLMs, these immensely complex models, function basically as the most insane flow chart you could imagine. Billions of nodes and interconnections between them. Nodes not receiving just yes-or-no inputs, but any degree of nuance. Outputs likewise not being yes-or-no, but any degree of nuance as well. And many questions superimposed atop each node simultaneously, with the differences between different questions teased out at later nodes. All self-assembled to contain a model of how the universe and the things within it interact.

At least, that's for the FFNs - the attention blocks add in yet another level of complexity, allowing the model to query a latent-space memory, which each FFN block then outputs transformed for the next layer. The latent space memory being.... all concepts in the universe that exist, and any that could theoretically exist between any number of existing concepts. These are located in an N-dimensional space, where N is hundreds to thousands. The degree of relationship between concepts can be measured by their cosine similarity. So for *each token* at *each layer*, a conceptual representation of somewhere in the space of everything that does or could exist is taken, and based on all the other things-that-does-or-could exists and their relative relations to each other, are transformed by the above insane-flow-chart FFN into the next positional state.

Words don't exist in a vacuum. Words are a reflection of the universe that led to their creation. To get good at predicting words, you have to have a good model of the underlying world and all the complexity of the interactions therein. It took achieving the Transformers architecture, with the combination of FFNs and an attention mechanism, along with mind-bogglingly huge scales of interactions (the exponential interaction of billions of parameters), to do this - to develop this compressed representation of "how everything in the known universe interacts".

What is "a few" about 316 billion parameters, let alone before you exponentiate their interactions?

Technically dictatorship could be argued as slavery and that extended to french revolution and beyond.

The systems how you got your lot varied of course but throughout most of it large concentrations of people tended to have pretty strict hierarchies.

Iike it would be wrong to say that the whip was the only way you got people to do back breaking labor as well. A lot of really crappy jobs in antiquity and even to victorian england weren't structured as ownership of persons.

Arguably in victorian england the exploitation was enabled by the people on top not owning and not having responsibility for the people they exploited in dismal conditions, as it was structured as being those peoples fault they had to work for so little.

We know from their idea of slavery from texts and it was pretty much people as property of state and individuals.

Massacres and genocides too.

The point is though that the slave had no say in the matter of playing the flute and got told that they succ, but that of course could be narrative of whoever wrote the text either to make him sound like an ahole or as we would say now being hyper based.

What is "simple" about the extremely complex interactions of 316 billion parameters?

Honestly I question how much of the training was actually done with Twitter data.

It certainly was a source, but I seriously doubt it was the only data or even majority of the data.

Either way, doesn't really matter with RAG. RAG doesn't have to "know" much, just how to summarize things others have written.

"Grok's differentiator from other AI chatbots like ChatGPT is its exclusive and real-time access to X data." That's just RAG. Retrieval Augmented Generation. All Grok is doing is acting as a summarizer. This is something you can do with an ultra-lightweight model, you don't need a 314B param monster.

Also, you don't need an X Premium subscription to "get access" to Grok, since its weights are public. To "get access" to an instance running it, maybe.

I've not tried running it, but from others who have, the general consensus seems to be: it's undertrained. It has way more parameters than it should need relative to its capabilities. Kinda reminiscent of, say, Falcon.

I also have an issue with "A snarky and rebellious" LLM. Except people using them for roleplaying scenarios (where you generally don't want a *fixed* personality), people generally don't want it inserting some sort of personality into their responses. As a general rule, people have a task they want the tool to do, and they just want the tool to do it. This notion that tools should have "personalities" is what led to Clippy.

But it doesn't affect them, it affects the sites.

And mostly only sites that don't normally get huge traffic.

And how to fix it? Any fix would let you make fake previews that spread in the network.

But slaves aren't free. You need to provide them with shelter, sanitation and food. And you wouldn't really use a lot of army/soldiers to keep them there as that costs money. Basically, you'd let slaves leave if they don't want "free" food, shelter and sanitation - demoralized worker is useless anyway.

So in the end it's not much of a difference between slaves in ancient world and blue collar workers now.

So ancient societies without slaves didn't and couldn't exist? Say, the Incas? The Harappan civilization? None at all? *eyeroll*

Incan society is IMHO really interesting. It's sort of "What if the Soviet Union had existed in the feudal era", this sort of imperial amalgam of communism and feudalism. There was still a heirarchy of feudal lords and resources tended to flow up the chain, but it was also highly structured as a welfare state. People would be allocated plots of land in their area of specific size relative to their fertility, along with the animals and tools to work it, including with respect to the family status (for example a couple who married and had more children would be given more land and pack animals). Even housing was a communal project. The state would also feed you during crop failures and the like In turn however all of your surpluses had to go to the state (and they had a system to prevent hoarding), and everyone owned a certain amount of days of labour to the state (mit'a), with the type of work based of their skills. It was very much a case of "each according to his ability, each according to his needs" - at least for commoners.

The Incans saw their conquest as bringing civilization and security to the people under their control, as a sort of "workers paradise" of their era. Not that local peoples wanted to be subdued by them, far from it, but the fact that instead of dying trying to resist an unwinnable war, they could accept consequences of a loss that weren't apocalyptic to them, certainly helped the Incan expansion. They also employed the very Russian / Soviet style policy of forced relocations and relocation of Incan settlers into newly conquered territories to import their culture and language to the new areas while diluting that of those conquered within the empire.

The closest category one might try to ascribe to "slaves" is the yanacona, aka those separated from their family groups. During times of high military conquest most were captured from invading areas, while during peacetime most came from the provinces as part of villages's service obligations to the state, or worked as yanacona to pay off debts or fines. These were people that did not continue to live in and farm their own villages, but rather worked at communes or on noble estates. But there really doesn't seem to be much relation beyond that and slavery. Yanacona could have high social status, even in some cases being basically lords themselves (generally those who were of noble descent) with significant power, though most were commoners. But life as a yanacona is probably best described on most cases as "people living on a commune". There was no public degradation for being a yanacona, no special marks of status, they couldn't be randomly abused or killed, there were no special punishments reserved for them, they had families just like everyone else, etc. Pretty much just workers assigned to a commune.

First off, it's simply not true that ancient wars had only two options, "genocide or slavery". Far more wars were ended with treaties, with the loser having to give up lands, possessions, pay tribute, or the like. Slaves were not some sort of inconvenience, "Oh, gee, I guess we have to do this". They were part of the war booty, incredibly valuable "possessions" to be claimed. Many times wars were launched with the specific purpose of capturing slaves.

Snyder argues that the fear of enslavement, such an ubiquitous part of the ancient era, was so profound as to be core to the creation of the state itself. An early state being an entity to which you give up some control of your life in order to gain the protection against outsiders taking more extreme control over your life. For example, a key aspect to the spread of Christianity in Europe was that Christians were forbidden to take other Christians as slaves, but they could still take pagans as slaves. States commonly converted to Christianity, not by firm belief of their leaders, but to stop being the victim of - and instead often be the perpetrator of - slave raids.

First slaving focused on the east, primarily pagan Slavic peoples. With the conversion of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, some slaving continued even further east into Asia, but a lot of it spread to the south - first into the Middle East and North Africa, but ultimately (first though intermediaries, and later, directly) into Central Africa. Soon in many countries "slaves" became synonymous with "Africans". Yet let's not forget where the very word "slave" itself comes from: the word "Slav".

Currently rated "overwhelmingly negative" on Steam. I've never seen that before.