Learn to read dick

A reporter following a person working for a surveillance company is not in fact unusual. You lie every time you speak.

Lol reliability. Both furnaces in this house needed not just new generators but also gas valves. One of them had been replaced before.

Like saying people were to blame for the reflecting pool fuck up. Sure that was true, just not any of the people Trump or the justice department blamed, it was the installers and morons who managed the project. Yah we get it, thanks for the lying pro-tips.

The US Supreme Court, and supreme courts in general, are not "triggered." You appeal to them to hear your case. They may do so if they feel that your case is somehow relevant to wider issues.

The US Supreme Court might hear this case if they wanted to interpret the constitution in such a way as to set upper limits placed on fines, or wished to issue a judgement on the idea that fraud is still fraud if nobody gets hurt.

Randomness is the problem in LLMs that leads to inconsistency of hallucination. It's being substituted for the part of the processing we do that software can't do yet. Hardware can't do it either, only wetware. The part that (inductively? Instinctively?) knows whether the output makes sense just plain doesn't exist in LLMs.

Yeah, that's a good example. Also "the actual thinking process as opposed to the correlational hallucinations that constitute all LLM 'thought'."

Two different sides of the same hubris.

A little tutorial if you know a little bit of Python:

https://numpy.org/numpy-tutori...

And a book with more detail if you're more into math:

https://www.deeplearningbook.o...

Everything else is pretty much scaling up and introducing some restrictions on the basic model.

You see it in the way you just used the word "you." Model "collapse" is a misnomer. It's drift, which you see in humans in literally everything they do, and you can demonstrate to yourself just by repeatedly generating random numbers and calculating the mean.

Bullshit. The fundamentals of modern AI models can be understood by anyone with a basic knowledge of algebra, which you should have picked up in junior high. They're piecewise linear approximations and use exactly the same equation as the linear regression you learned in high school or first year university. The more advanced stuff is hacky restrictions on that basic design to tone down the model's flexibility and make it easier to fit.

The reason it's hard to understand is because a) people who have no idea what they're talking about try and handwave their way through it; b) people explaining it want you to think it's really, really sophisticated and hard to understand, c) you're using "understand" in an unrealistic way or d) some combination of the above.

Not always, it depends on the situation. If you don't have stock in the company, if your boss doesn't respect you, if other companies in the region/industry are the same, then these factors weigh towards a union.

Again, it depends on the situation. If someone else is already forming a union, lending your support to it is lightweight.

I think there is room to argue though, that distillation might violate copyright while training on large volumes of large material does not.

Nope. There is an argument about whether training a model on source material violates copyright or not. Current court decisions in the US say that the training does not, but you must have acquired the material legally in the first place.

Current court decisions in the US say that the raw output of a model is not copyrightable. Never mind that the people doing the distilling have paid for that output so even if it were copyrightable they'd own it.

The only thing happening is violation of terms of service which haven't been tested in court and would (hopefully) fail that test. Otherwise good luck with any software you use to produce anything, compilers included. And that's why these companies are directly lobbying the US government to do, uh, something, about it. They're trying to turn a bug in their business model into a geopolitical issue.

I thought "Mommy Has Four Graphics Cards" was pretty good, but "Not Everyone Computes" did a great job of explaining why the industry is largely about remote services rather than running it locally.

Indeed, he may have better luck waiting a couple years and donating to the campaign of president Warren.

Cowards who only have whataboutism are my primary detractors, which is how I know I'm right. Thanks, coward.