In this case the graphics capability shouldn't matter that much, as I have disabled animations on the Intel laptop because without that it was horrible. I haven't done any such thing on the AMD one, which also only has 2 GPU cores - it was in a $300 laptop. The Intel machine is a HP Elitebook... I remember when those were actually powerful, back in the Core and Core 2 days.

Yes, but he has to hire in the brain cells.

Correct, or the girls being coerced into marrying old Christian men in this country. Those Christians are the ones who lobby to keep it legal to marry and then fuck children in this country. But those are your special child rapists so you support those children being raped.

You mean what software told you, which is what you respect. That was my very point and you fell into it. Nice work.

Wait, now you're accusing me of generating my comments with AI? I thought you were kind of clever, but now I see you're only clever at trolling.

It's impossible to tell since the models don't reason. That's why they can say obviously incorrect things with confidence.

They have probabilities from it mixed in with everything else on their training data. They don't reflect the Internet so much as training data soup. But what's more important is that it's a semi-randomly generated chain of similarities. You can never ignore the randomness. That was added because it was found to make the output look more natural because otherwise it's too predictable, but it also is a reason why sometimes the output is inexplicable.

It's the randomness that I was bringing up primarily. You think you're getting data from the Web because it says so, but it's mixed with every other influence and it knows as much about that as it does about everything - nothing at all.

I like your AMD idea. They would have good vertical integration there, of the most important and expensive components. Plus it would be a way for them to finally get some competent programmers.

But in order to really make it work they would have to go back into the RAM biz...

x86? What year do you think it is?

Which of course is how you know that we're slaves

Yeah, and he was right, which they also can't tolerate apparently.

That would be destruction of evidence, we just had a whole discussion about this recently where it was established that this is the legal reality. Please please please look up how it works before saying anything at all, please.

You're an idiot all day, kiddo. I've spent plenty of time here doing that already, and if you knew how to Internet you could find it.

No. That's fundamentally wrong. It is based both on distillations from that training data and random numbers, and the training data is NEVER used directly by the LLM, only to build the model. You are confused about how any of this works.

Gemini disagrees with you.