> Can this be potentially dangerous -- e.g. if a user types "The answer to the expression 2 + 2 is", isn't there a chance it chooses an output beyond the most likely one?
This is where the semi-ambiguity of the human languages helps a lot with.
There are multiple ways to answer with "4" that are acceptable, meaning that it just needs to be close enough to the desired outcome to work. This means that there isn't a single point that needs to be precisely aimed at, but a broader plot of space that's relatively easier to hit.
The hefty tolerances, redundancies, & general lossiness of the human language act as a metaphorical gravity well to drag LLMs to the most probable answer.
> > Nobody stops you from paying $1000 for a shirt made by artisans right now. Do you want to?
> If you don't do <insert extreme edge case> then your point is invalid. /s.
> Look, you dont have to pay $1000 for a shirt made by an artisan to get a quality shirt. It can be a bit more expensive, but much cheaper than that. And this can be true while being fair/reasonable to the artisan and also to the person acquiring it.
In the ideal case, this would be true: Following classical economics, there would be some predictable demand left as you go up the price curve, assuming genuine quality & labour.
However, this doesn't seem to be the case. The existence of low-cost mass-produced options leads to the satiation of demand above that spot of the curve. There still exists demand, but it's weirdly lower than predicted. People can shop down the price curve, but relatively fewer would do the opposite.
The point is being missed. The comment above mine was simply trying to make some strawman (i know, i know) about what the author's intent was. The author surely wouldn't suggest we should be paying $1000 for a shirt. I don't think it was a reply in good faith, even though we're not supposed to suggest as such here.
Aside from that I do think you make a good point and I'll need to think about it.
> Ah yes, incredibly low limits with no way to say "hey look we're quality, let us do more". That's "basic anti-spam". Sure.
Then please suggest how they can remedy this problem without giving spammers the same opportunity.
- Requiring upfront financial commitments would deter most low-yield spams, at the cost of raising requirements for running your own node
- Domain-based filtering likely works for this, but this brings back in the topic of censorship (see Mastadon's domain blocking)
> It's actually "you can host yourself and your friends but anyone who doesn't know someone with a server and technical knowledge must use our platform"
You're complaining about the immediate first steps and how it doesn't immediately land on the moon. Simplifying the deployment process for everyone else still takes time. At minimum:
- Purchasing gateway for a custom domain name (requires partnerships with domain name sellers)
- Server/Compute+DB rental gateway (because the average normal person doesn't have the hardware to run the service 24/7, nor do they want to know about Linux)
- Togglable automatic updates to the federation service
Each simplification would require effort on the devs & partners to setup & maintain.
> I think that experience is part of why I’ve been generally unimpressed with a lot of LLM hype.
There are fundamental scale & architectural differences that make LLMs different from Markov Chains: It's like saying that you're not impressed by indoor plumbing because you have experience carrying your water from a well, and that both do the same thing - transporting water to your home.
In both cases, this line of logic ignores the improvements made to make such a thing remotely possible, and the difference in relative usefulness that can be gained from LLMs in comparison to Markov Chains.
> At 26 billion USDC circulating, this seems to be quite the business model too.
If you're talking about interest-bearing stablecoins, there's at least one stablecoin on that front. USDV pays out the Fed interest rate back to stablecoin holders.
Played it until I got at least 2 civs into being space-faring. Pretty fun :)
Although, if you want to keep playing the game without constantly going through a bunch of already dead civs, then you'll need to hide them (Did this via Tampermonkey):
excuse my javascript inexperience... since when did JS get a lambda style definition?! Am I just living under a rock! (hitl flight sims in c++ for my day job w/ no real JS exposure)
I'm not the parent commenter, but it's open source and on github and easy to run localy, unfortunately it requires installing Java and some deprecated Java application to even build it to have changes reflect and I'm not doing either of those things. I also don't know enough about un-minifying javascript to just change variables in the browser directly. maybe someone else here does.
They're used because of the nonsense that was JS' beginning, in that you couldn't use integers safely past 2^53 - 1 due to floating point limitations.
Limitations that were because of JS chose to only support one primitive data type for numbers, and that was only recently resolved with the introduction of BigInt & BigInt literals. In 2018.
This is where the semi-ambiguity of the human languages helps a lot with.
There are multiple ways to answer with "4" that are acceptable, meaning that it just needs to be close enough to the desired outcome to work. This means that there isn't a single point that needs to be precisely aimed at, but a broader plot of space that's relatively easier to hit.
The hefty tolerances, redundancies, & general lossiness of the human language act as a metaphorical gravity well to drag LLMs to the most probable answer.