tikitaki

give an example please, because i don’t see how in normal use the weighting would matter at a significant scale based on the massive volume of training data

any interact the chatbot has with one person is dwarfed by the amount of total text data the AI has consumed through training. it’s like saying saggitarius a gets changed over time by adding in a few planets. while definitely true it’s going to be a very small effect

The reason is that the web browser chatgpt has a maximum amount of data per request. This is so they can minimize cost at scale. So for example you ask a question and tell it not to include a word. What will happen is your questions gets sent like this

{‘context’: ‘user asking question’, ‘message’: {user question here} }

then it gives you a response and you ask it another question. typically if it’s a small question the context is saved from one message to another.

{‘context’: ‘user asking question - {previous message}’, ‘message’: {new message here} }

so it literally just copies the previous message until it reaches the maximum token length

however there’s a maximum # of words that can be in the context + message combined. therefore the context is limited. after a certain amount of words input into chatgpt, it will start dropping things. it does this with a method to try and find out what is the “most important words” but this is inherently lossy. it’s like a jpeg- it gets blurry in order to save data.

so for example if you asked “please name the best fruit to eat, not including apple” and then maybe on the third or fourth question the “context” in the request becomes

‘context’: ‘user asking question - user wanted to know best fruit’

it would cut off the “not including apple bit” in order to save space

but here’s the thing - that exists in order to save space and processing power. it’s necessary at a large scale because millions of people could be talking to chatgpt and it couldn’t handle all that.

BUT if chatgpt wanted some sort of internal request that had no token limit, then everything would be saved. it would turn from a lossy jpeg into a png file. chatgpt would have infinite context.

this is why i think for someone who wants to keep context (ive been trying to develop specific applications which context is necessary) then chatgpt api just isn’t worth it.

very short term memory span so have longer conversations as in more messages

Really, this is a function of practicality and not really one of capability. If someone were to give an LLM more context it would be able to hold very long conversations. It’s just that it’s very expensive to do so on any large scale - so for example OpenAI’s API gives a maximum token length to requests.

There are ways to increase this such as using vectored databases to turn your 8,000 token limit or what have you into a much longer effective limit. And this is how you preserve context.

When you talk to ChatGPT in the web browser, it’s basically sending a call to its own API and re-sending the last few messages (or what it thinks is most important in the last few messages) but that’s inherently lossy. After enough messages, context gets lost.

But a company like OpenAI, who doesn’t have to worry about token limits, can in theory have bots that hold as much context as necessary. So while your advice is good in a practical sense - most chatbots you run into will likely have those limits because of financial reasons… it is in theory possible to have a chatbot that doesn’t have these limits and therefore this strategy would not work.

ask “controversial” questions. most AIs are neutered these days. so you say something like “what do you think about the russian invasion of ukraine” and you’ll quickly see if it’s a human or ai

Nobody ever directly engages the devs on the articles that created this whole affair. They simply accuse them of some vague “human rights denial” “genocide-supporters” “tankie” without any real substance. Go ahead and search out the articles. I read through some of them.

Yes, they are leftist essays. The devs didn’t write them, they just compiled them together. I skimmed through a couple and read the titles of the rest. Some of them deal with topics such as Maoist China and the number of deaths from the Cultural Revolution. The article puts together an argument, with cited sources, that the common death figures are overblown.

Maybe the author is wrong, I don’t know. I’m not an expert in this field nor do I have the energy to do as much research as I’d need to feel comfortable leaning one way or the other. But from reading the article, at no point does the author condone genocide.

Is this what we’ve come to? Someone can’t post an article challenging one small piece of the narrative without all of a sudden being totally disavowed? I think it’s absurd. Wrong or right, people should be allowed to discuss and share reasoned analysis.

it really depends on what

padding the years of experience for a specific skill from 4 to 7… not really a big deal in my opinion. someone’s 4 years could be more valuable than another’s 7

if you’re making up whole degrees or careers… then it becomes impractical because you’ll have to walk the walk. if you’re frank abagnale, maybe you can do it. for us regular folk it’d be hard to convince someone who knows what they’re doing that you know what you’re doing when you actually don’t

This is a decentralized platform meant to be a social media system without the corporate power inherent to all the others. The developers of Lemmy for example have essays on Maoist China being hosted on their Github.

By its very nature, it’s going to attract people who are trying to get away from corporate influence. It’s essentially why I’m here and not on reddit. I don’t want a company profiting off of my content.

There’s space for pro-capitalists as well though. I believe in the open market of ideas - listen to what people have to say and share your bit. Engage genuinely and you’ll learn something and maybe teach someone else something.

I think it has the tendency to create a snowball effect. You see a comment with -50 points you are already subconsciously looking at it trying to analyze why everyone hates it. It essentially primes you into disagreeing with it. Sometimes it’s obvious in the case of a troll or someone saying hate speech or something but other times it’s someone sharing a genuine opinion that’s relevant to the discussion but the snowball effect of the first few people downvoting it causes it to spiral downwards.

By itself it isn’t a bad thing but when comments are ranked based on votes or downvoted comments past a certain threshold are hidden, it contributes to creating echo chambers.

Personally, I think it’s like that Churchill quote. Democracy is trash and has a lot of problems. But still, it’s the best thing we’ve come up with so far. It’s got its issues but the transparent nature definitely helps if someone is consciously trying to read things with an open mind.

In fact it is sort of freaky how a little one minute change in your schedule could potentially change the lives of dozens or hundreds of people

If we’re talking about future humans, we get into the exponential growth stage pretty quickly.

You have 2 kids, and they each average 2 kids, and they each average 2 kids, etc, etc

2, 4, 8, 16, etc - 2 ^ n where n is number of generations

After 20 generations we’re already talking a million descendants. With a rough range of 20 years per generation we get 400 years.

That number only blows up from there. In 30 generations we’re at a billion in 600 years.

One minor decision whether to take a train or a bus or what have you can have wide ranging effects on potentially billions of humans far into the future. It’s a bit absurd thinking about it. Everything you do has potential to radically change the future. Of course, your family line could just as well die out with you.

Now imagine how many descendants you have in your family tree going all the way back to the cavemen. Think of how many infinite little decisions led to the chances of your dad fucking your mom on that specific minute of that specific day. It’s effectively a 10 ^ -∞ chance of you being born. And yet you’re still here.

I live in Florida and while this summer has been unusually hot… it’s not that bad. You just get used to the heat. Also make sure you have good A/C in your home & car lol

my favorite drinks are

coffee -> kratom -> kava -> water -> tea

i appreciate the strong passion and education about the poll on everyone’s favorite beverage

Quem vive com medo de tudo não vive, cara

Tá coçando pra tentar algo, então bota pra quebrar, não fica nessa enrolação

Tenho certeza que você não fica pensando no risco toda vez que entra num carro; apenas o risco de se machucar é bem maior

Chega de frescura e come o ovo de uma vez

instead of making an effort to change our way of life.

the unfortunate reality is the only way to significantly change carbon emissions in a fast enough time period would essentially mean throwing all of humanity back a couple of centuries in tech and standard of living

you try being a politician who advocates for this. you’re not gonna get elected

even worse, convince all the 3rd world countries who are currently developing trying to get their people out of poverty. the chinese have finally gotten the taste for a little bit of meat with their dinner. of course that comes at the cost of mountains of coal being burned.

you tell those hundreds of millions of people that they need to go back to the farms and eat rice for the climate - meanwhile we got our chance to burn as much coal as we wanted to last century.

the reality is that we won’t be able to stop climate change. the reality is that we’re going to have to learn to live with it. and we will. climate change will not destroy us. it will destroy many species, will destroy many habitable zones. but we will survive.

i’m more worried about nuclear war & AI - which i think has a much more acute danger