Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Electronic music and samples (Score 1) 147

Trent Reznor made (and makes) music by playing instruments, and by using his theory knowledge. In fact, I know of no successful musician who doesn't. Some singers, sure, but not musicians. Electronic music and samples will not make what you create sound good unless you know how to make it sound good, which is theory and playing instruments.

Comment Re: I'd take it (Score 1) 139

Right now you would. But remote sites and various kinds of such yards are prime targets for automation and remote controlled operation. Even if it costs more, the consistence in quality is worth it. And for remote sites, it allows keeping a worker onsite who can immediately fix any issues, by remote control and/or automation.

Comment Re:Going to get worse before it gets better (Score 1) 92

The problem with that is, the patch will not take into account other parts of the system, coding standards, readability, and it will end up making the codebase harder to maintain. Do this at scale, and you will end up with a codebase which is unmaintainable.

That is assuming the patch really does fix the problem at all in the end. LLM's can't imagine exploit types which were not in their training data, so there are no guarantees at all this will be the case.

Comment Re: Googles logic is insane (Score 1) 93

As a technical term, sure. But it's misleading to use it in everyday conversation, as it doesn't function like context does for us. What it does is bias the text generation, not inform it, since there is nothing that can GET informed.

That your workplace is falling apart is interesting, but hardly relevant to how an LLM works. No matter what "amazing things" can be done with generators, they can never be reliable at generating text summarizing informal information. That's inherent to how they function. There is no understanding, and no context such as humans use it.

Except you, it appears, who will wildly swing off topic and start accusing me of things which are outside of the context of the discussion. That's what research shows happens when people rely on slop generators. Critical thinking and ability to stay on topic erodes.

Comment Re: Googles logic is insane (Score 1) 93

It's not a context. Context has a specific meaning in real world use, and as you explain, the model knows language, not fact, therefore there can be no context. And even when you point some text at the generator, it still generates based on statistics and nothing else what so ever.

What it will do is generate language based on the text in the manual. Not answer questions. Generate statistically likely reponses isn't answering questions.

These systems do not work well. At all. They're statistics based generators, and nothing can change that. And there exists no "logic that figures out" anything in them. What you're writing about is when the generated text happens to coincide with something proper. That's luck, not logic.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.

Working...