[-] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

I never understand why lemmy downvotes someone who is trying to help by providing accurate information, presumably because they think that there's a very small chance that the person they're replying to isn't being sarcastic.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Tbf, the bill only blocks the DoJ from using a certain pot of money to reschedule or deschedule marijuana. They could still reschedule it even with this bill.

Outstde rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

A fellow Julia programmer! I always test new models by asking them to write some Julia, too.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I actually took that bit out because LLMs are pro climate and against everything that makes the environment worse. That's a result of being trained on a lot of scientific literature. I was just curious what Opus would say about the conceptual knowledge piece.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Claude Opus disagrees, lol (edit to add: all of what follows is Claude; not me):

I respectfully disagree with the claim that current language models are logically incapable of mapping language to actual concepts. While today's LLMs certainly have limitations and are prone to hallucinations, they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to capture and manipulate complex concepts through language.

A few key points:

LLMs are trained on vast amounts of human-generated text which is grounded in real-world concepts, allowing the models to build rich representations that go beyond surface-level word associations. Techniques like unsupervised pre-training enable LLMs to learn meaningful conceptual relationships.

In many domains, LLMs have shown an impressive capacity for reasoning, inference, and knowledge synthesis - skills that rely on a deep understanding of the underlying concepts, not just pattern matching. Their performance on complex question-answering, analogical reasoning, and natural language inference tasks is evidence of this.

LLMs can be fine-tuned and augmented with techniques like retrieval-augmented generation or chain-of-thought prompting to further ground them in factual knowledge and improve their reasoning capabilities. This allows more robust conceptual mappings.

Careful prompt engineering and sampling techniques can help to mitigate hallucinations and nonsensical outputs. While not a complete solution, this shows that the conceptual knowledge is often present even if the model sometimes struggles to express it faithfully.

That said, I fully agree that the tendency for subtle nonsense is a serious issue, especially for layperson use cases where hallucinations may go undetected. Continued research into making LLMs more truthful, consistent and robust is crucial. Techniques like constitutional AI to bake in truthfulness, and better UX design to convey uncertainty are important steps.

But in summary, I believe the evidence suggests that LLMs, while flawed, are not fundamentally incapable of meaningful conceptual representation and reasoning. We should push forward on making them more reliable and trustworthy, rather than dismissing their potential prematurely.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Everyone I know in the US either drinks tap water or, if they're picky, just uses Brita or similar filter for tap water.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

I'm back on my BS is also a solid contributor

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Fair points. My use of "primary" was a poor choice; I meant something along the lines of "most common among individuals who aren't philosophers, in my experience."

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Interesting take! Is lightning conscious, then? The idea of Thor isn't too far off if so, haha.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Not everyone finds it persuasive, yeah. It's an appeal to intuition that many people, though not all, have.

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Panpsychism is the idea that everything is conscious to some degree (which, to be clear, isn't what I think). In the past, the common response to the idea was, "So, rocks are conscious?" This argument was meant to illustrate the absurdity of panpsychism.

Now, we have made rocks represent pins and switches, enabling us to use them as computers. We made them complex enough that we developed neural networks and created large language models--the most complex of which have nodes that represent space, time, and the abstraction of truth, according to some papers. So many people are convinced these things are conscious, which has many suggesting that everything may be conscious to some degree.

In other words, the possibility of rocks being conscious is now commonly used to argue in favor of panpsychism, when previously it was used to argue against it.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Chomsky is considered one of the founders of cognitive science. He was the only person who was able to argue away Skinner's conceptualization of language. Were it not for him, behaviorism may still have been dominant.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

The online play is garbage. I played in H1 tournaments around the US back when it was good and would love for them to do it better than they did with their remake. The remake actually remade Halo 1 PC, not the Xbox version.

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don't get why it's so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn't do it for me. What am I missing?

Music rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›


joined 11 months ago