So I go back to my question…does a convicted child molester finish their jail sentence and the can go and work around children? Or do we also accept that maybe, even after the person has finished their sentence, that the “punishment” continues to protect society?
If the latter, then the question becomes when this is appropriate, and not if it is ever appropriate.
I find your distinction to be arbitrary. You could argue that punishment for child sex abuse should have a beginning and an end, or you can argue that the punishment for a felony conviction does not end when you get out of prison.
I work in finance, and I certainly would not want to bring on someone who was convicted of felony security fraud working for the firm, because it ours everything in jeopardy.
Reductio ad absurdum: Felony conviction for child molestation. Removed from record. Should they have free reign to be able to apply for any job, even if it might involve children?
I don’t consider myself a never nester, but looking at my code now, I extract all the time and rarely go 4 tabs in. It just makes it more easily maintainable. I also like the idea of putting the failure conditions first. I haven’t looked at this yet but I’m sure there are some times I can use it.
Sure, sometimes you might not have a choice, but I do think there is a lot of value to what they are saying. I think it kind of goes in line with standard “functions should do one thing” paradigm.
I don’t get why people are so confident that this is a dumb move that won’t work. We know games are buggy at launch, and people rush to buy them anyway. And then the forums are filled with people losing their shit that the game has bugs in it and isn’t perfect. This idea that gamers are some patient group doesn’t reflect the reality I’ve seen over the past 2 decades.
I’m not sure I agree, but then it goes to my second question:
What’s the effective difference?
Chat GPT had the book entirely memorized
I feel like this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs are trained.
This is a vague non answer, although I agree it’s done very differently because our process is biological and ai is not.
But as I asked elsewhere, what’s the effective difference?
I guess it comes down to a philosophical question as to what “know” actually means.
But from my perspective is that it certainly knows some things. It knows how to determine what I’m asking, and it clearly knows how to formulate a response by stitching together information. Is it perfect? No. But neither are humans, we mistakenly believe we know things all the time, and miscommunications are quite common.
But this is why I asked the follow up question…what’s the effective difference? Don’t get me wrong, they clearly have a lot of flaws right now. But my 8 year old had a lot of flaws too, and I assume both will get better with age.
So, it’s either perfect right now, or never capable of anything. Great critical and nuanced thinking.
spicy autocomplete clearly cannot.
What you are basing this “it clearly cannot” on? Because an early iteration of it was mediocre at it? The first ICE cars were slower than horses, I’m afraid this statement may be the equivalent of someone pointing at that and saying “cars can’t get good at going fast.”
But I specifically asked “in this regard”, referring to taking a test after previously having trained yourself on the data.
I absolutely agree. However, if you think the LLMs are just fancy LUTs, then I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, we are also just fancy LUTs.
My question to you is how is it different than a human in this regard? I would go to class, study the material, hope to retain it, so I could then apply that knowledge on the test.
The ai is trained on the data, “hopes” to retain it, so it can apply it on the test. It’s not storing the book, so what’s the actual difference?
And if you have an answer to that, my follow up would be “what’s the effective difference?” If we stick an ai and a human in a closed room and give them a test, why does it matter the intricacies of how they are storing and recalling the data?
Why is that a criticism? This is how it works for humans too: we study, we learn the stuff, and then try to recall it during tests. We’ve been trained on the data too, for neither a human nor an ai would be able to do well on the test without learning it first.
This is part of what makes ai so “scary” that it can basically know so much.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone uses multiple question marks at the end of a statement. I’m triggered right now and reporting you for harassment. Lol
I haven’t taught my kids. . .yet.
However, they know that if they can’t find something they want to watch, they just have to ask me and I’ll get it from them. . .and that (sarcastically) “daddy is just borrowing it from the internet” so I think know what’s going on.
A crowd of 10,000 people means fuck all compared to 158,429,631.
I agree that it would be a bad data set, but not because it is too small. That size would actually give you a pretty good result if it was sufficiently random. Which is, of course, the problem.
But you’re missing the point: just because something is obvious to you does not mean it’s actually true. The model could be trained in a way to not be biased by our number choice, but to actually be pseudo-random. Is it surprising that it would turn out this way? No. But to think your assumption doesn’t need to be proven, in such a case, is almost equivalent to thinking a Trump rally is a good data sample for determining the opinion of the general public.
“we don’t need to prove the 2020 election was stolen, it’s implied because trump had bigger crowds at his rallies!” -90% of trump supporters
Another good example is the Monty Hall “paradox” where 99% of people are going to incorrectly tell you the chance is 50% because they took math and that’s how it works.
Just because something seems obvious to you doesn’t mean it is correct. Always a good idea to test your hypothesis.
Windows bad, ai bad. Upvote. Thought isn’t a big consideration here.
So the current position is that felony convictions stay on your record forever and individuals can decide whether or not to do business with these people.
You’re saying that the current system is bad…but only for some crimes.
I’m pointing out that your argument as to why is arbitrary… Just “what we decide” as a society, and the current decision is that felonies, no matter what, stick around.