When they hallucinate, they don’t do it consistently, so one option is running the same query through multiple times (with different “expert” base prompts), or through different LLMs and then rejecting it as “I don’t know” if there’s too much disagreement between them. The Q* approach is similar, but baked in. This should dramatically reduce hallucinations.

Edit: added bit about different experts

Don’t be offended at the language - that’s just friendly banter for an Aussie. You get used to it.

You may not have discovered TVP yet. You should do so.

Wait until they discover what stable diffusion can do, running locally.

Ah, you’re suggesting using RFC 3514. Good thinking.

Fractal universe theories have been proposed. I don’t know many details myself, but just thought it was an example of how you can still have theoretically infinite detail within a finite system.

Fractals are infinite

what about edited?

No.

automaton — Noun: 1. A machine or robot designed to follow a precise sequence of instructions., 2. A person who acts like a machine or robot, often defined as having a monotonous lifestyle and lacking in emotion., 3. A formal system, such as a finite-state machine or cellular automaton., 4. A toy in the form of a mechanical figure. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/automaton

I said automaton wrong for years. I said auto-maton instead of au-tomoton. I still cringe a bit thinking about it :-/

Ferrock is an interesting new development. Stronger than concrete and absorbs CO2 when curing.

I was just looking at https://haveibeenpwned.com/ and it listed appen as a site that breached my details. I had no idea who they were or why they had my details. I guess this is related?

Appen: In June 2020, the AI training data company Appen suffered a data breach exposing the details of almost 5.9 million users which were subsequently sold online. Included in the breach were names, email addresses and passwords stored as bcrypt hashes. Some records also contained phone numbers, employers and IP addresses. The data was provided to HIBP by dehashed.com.

They have released it on github. The code is only about 500 lines. But releasing the model is arguably more important because that sort of compute is not affordable to any mortals.

That’s UBS, Universal Basic Services, one possible alternative to UBI, but more likely, we’ll end up with a bit of both, I think.

Using copyrighted material is not the same thing as copyright infringement. You need to (re)publish it for it to become an infringement, and OpenAI is not publishing the material made with their tool; the users of it are. There may be some grey areas for the law to clarify, but as yet, they have not clearly infringed anything, any more than a human reading copyrighted material and making a derivative work.

Yeah, the ingestion part is still to be determined legally, but I think OpenAI will be ok. NYT produces content to be read, and copyright only protects them from people republishing their content. People also ingest their content and can make derivative works without problem. OpenAI are just doing the same, but at a level of ability that could be disruptive to some companies. This isn’t even really very harmful to the NYT, since the historical material used doesn’t even conflict with their primary purpose of producing new news. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Only publishing it is a copyright issue. You can also obtain copyrighted material with a web browser. The onus is on the person who publishes any material they put together, regardless of source. OpenAI is not responsible for publishing just because their tool was used to obtain the material.

Would that give Ukraine a chance to join NATO? They weren’t allowed to join until hostilities were over iirc.

Your friend was right.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. The gerrymandering and illegal voting is real. I mean that’s all on the Republicans, but it’s real.

Oh, right.