I was born in 1984 so I'm still a baby. Pick me up.

Your conclusion is that the Tesla K80 is a great value, but your benchmark doesn't show that. It shows that the Tesla K80 12 GB is slower than the RTX 3070 TI (with unknown vram) on one synthetic benchmark. You don't provide performance per dollar. You also say it scales up well across multiple cards but don't show that.

No, UBI will never happen. We will all just be berated for not buying stuff. If UBI does happen then consumerism causes more pollution.

What if the AI can generate its own ideas and concepts?

An AI capable of creating a good movie from start to finish on its own has many more implications than just entertainment. This will put it very close to a general purpose AI, assuming we don't need a general purpose AI that can do this. A general purpose AI can do anything. It doesn't need a human helper to perform an intellectual task, it can always do it on its own. It could improve itself to make itself smarter, or faster, or think different from how it was originally created. Multiple general purpose AIs could work together, making them even stronger.

It will change everything and do so very quickly because it's software.

There was a thread awhile back about one benchmark being filled with spelling errors, grammar errors, and wrong answers. In many cases there were multiple correct answers but one was picked as the correct answer for no particular reason. Creating a benchmark for the subjective task of "is this text good?" seems to be pretty hard. It's even harder when the people creating the benchmark have a poor grasp of language.

If I were to ask a language model "Describe an apple." There are many correct answers, none more correct than the others. Multiple independent humans would have to go over the answers and make subjective decisions on if the LLM answerded well. This becomes much more difficult with better LLMs because the prompts and answers have to become more complex, which makes reviewing the answers harder and more time consuming.

They also say there's room for improvement but they didn't explore that in this paper. Just think, one day we'll have the power of the sun GPT-3 in the palm of our hand. Could be really soon, could be far away, but it's coming.

Why did you try to implement code if you had no idea what it did? Certainly you didn't know because it didn't work and you didn't know why. What if it did work but also did something you didn't know it did because you didn't understand the code? I'd be worried about the solution you found. You really need to look it over again and make sure it only does exactly what it's supposed to do and nothing more.

It should be, but the pessimistic people think the current state of AI is as good as it can possibly be. They think because it can't replace a human it's completely worthless.

It does live up to the hype, but people are picking up a hammer and declaring it to be a failure because it can't be used to to screw in screws. It's a ball peen hammer, very delicate like me, but new hammers are coming.

Speak for yourself. 😓

That's what Sarah Connor learned in Terminator 2. The only good dad John Connor ever had was a machine made by Skynet.

As the technology gets better AI will be able to produce longer code, look at existing code to find bugs, refactor it, give suggestions for better architecture (you're not using any classes!)

The big thing will be when the AI can produce brand new code that has never been seen before. Imagine asking it to write an algorithm to find any digit of pi as fast as possible and it writes a unique algorithm that's faster than any human has made.

>Q: If I have 3 apples, and I give away two to my friend Bob, how many apples does Alice have?

Here's some different answers I got for this prompt.

If you have 3 apples and you give 2 of them away to Bob, you will have 3 - 2 = <<3-2=1>>1 apple remaining. I don't have any information about Alice, so I can't answer your question about how many apples she has.

If you have 3 apples and you give away 2 to your friend Bob, then you will have 1 apple left. If Alice didn't receive any apples from you, then she will not have any apples.

If you have 3 apples and give away 2 to your friend Bob, you will have 1 apple remaining. It is not mentioned in your question whether Alice has any apples, so I cannot answer that part of your question.

Each time I refreshed the page so it wouldn't have previous information. However the 4th time it was referring to information from before I refreshed the page.

They'll need to train an AI that can explain how it works.

It kept starting stories with "Once upon a time". When I told it to stop it changed to "Once there was". /r/maliciouscompliance 😼

Mastodon's strength, and weakness, is that accounts and posts are stored on a single server. If that server goes away so does your account and everything you've posted. This is good if that's what you want, but bad if you don't want it to happen. Unlike Twitter or Reddit it's not meant to be a one stop place for all things social. It's intended to give people a way to communicate with a small group of people easily rather than everybody in the world being able to see it. Servers can choose to remain private so people on other servers can't see their posts, which is great for privacy.

That series gimmick was using Rome: Total War footage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_Battles

https://youtu.be/cax2vIb22nc

In 2004 this was amazing.

If you get only Internet through Comcast they send you a streaming box. I thought it was going to just be a bunch of pay services, but it comes preloaded with many free services including ones that work like cable/over the air with different channels and predetermined shows running. Comcast is sending me mixed messages.

My elderly dad and I also found out that OTA TV has come a long way. These are all channels only elderly people like, but we get 30 of them or something.

I'm planning on dying before my dad. If I don't die before him I can go to Alaska and freeze to death. Or maybe death valley and walk off never to be found again. I'm going to create some content for mystery podcasts by stuffing my pockets full of meaningless code words and a diary with a fake story about my time in the forest and the guy that is following me deeper into it.

This is just Meta having no idea how their own software works. You don't need to be a machine learning developer to see how current text generators work, yet Meta developers were completly blind. This has absolutely nothing to do with the training data, you could give it every fact that exists and you can still easily get it to output things that are not true. It has everything to do with the way current text generators generate their output.

Current text generators estimate the next token based on it's training data and input tokens. The newest tokens take precedence over older tokens so input data is given a higher priority for estimating the next token. This means whatever a user inputs heavily influences the output. The AI does not output facts, it outputs text it thinks the user would type in next.

There is a work around. Hidden text can be added after user input giving the AI instructions to ignore certain user input. However, if the user knows what the hidden text says they can craft input that works around the work around. If the hidden text says "only use facts" the user could give the AI false facts, and because input has higher priority over training data then the false facts given by the user becomes facts to the AI. It's like the three laws where the stories find ways to get around them and nobody knows that because nobody has ever read any of the stories.

To output only facts would require a different type of text generator that outputs text in a different way that's not based on estimating the next token from user input. Current text generators are very good at generating creative output and can't be measured by their ability to produce facts no matter what anti-AI people demand. And I bet a fact producing generator would be terrible at being creative, which of course proves that it doesn't work according to anti-AI people.

Meta took a tractor to an F1 race and was flabbergasted that it couldn't keep up because it's so good at pulling heavy things. Then all the anti-tractor people declare tractors are a failure and can never work because they can't keep up. In reality the tractor was never designed to go fast, and no amount of tweaks will ever change that. Take an F1 car to a tractor pull and you'll get a very different outcome that the anti-tractor people will ignore, and Meta developers will say this means tractors can beat F1 cars in a race and they just need to tweak it to make it happen.

All current language models mimic their input. If you say "there's bears in space" the language model will agree that there are bears in space because it's continuing the text as if you were writing it. You can think of a language model as an extension of whatever is typed into it. You can't use current language models for factual knowledge because they're not designed to output facts, they're designed to estimate what the next token should be when given input.

Believe nothing until we can use it without restriction. This means controlled demos don't count, neither do people that swear how amazing it is. GPT-2 was supposed to change everything, so was GPT-3. Nothing has changed yet. Also, it's all just rumors. I'm sure GPT-4 or an equivalent will come out at some point, but there's no official word on it yet.

The current world order is replaced by the next world order. Tribalism is replaced by feudalism, feudalism is replaced by capitalism, capitalism decays into fascism and comes back because "that wasn't real capitalism", capitalism will be replaced by socialism, socialism will be replaced by something we don't have a name for yet.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/

>The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) once again rejected a copyright request for an A.I.-generated work of art, the Verge’s Adi Robertson reported last month. A three-person board reviewed a request from Stephen Thaler to reconsider the office’s 2019 ruling, which found his A.I.-created image “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”

AI created work can not be copywritten because a human must author it. If you want to copyright AI created work then you'll need to get the laws changed.