Yes, so there was a time when I was dreaming day and night about something like those LLMs, but for archiving knowledge. That is, archiving existing statements with subjects and objects and relations, a bit more high-level and less generalized than LLMs. Syllogisms, semantic relationships, distances in application. Sort of what holocrons are in Star Wars.
Comment on Preserving The Web Is Not The Problem. Losing It Is.
daychilde@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Knowledge rot is already a problem and has been for years – where you try to follow some links only to find they’re dead, or people deleted their content. The anecdotes of finding some old problem and someone just said “I figured it out”. Sure, archival won’t fix that specific example, but the principle is there - we lose so much information.
It would be nice if we had a government that worked for We the People and made information archival mandatory — likr the Library of Congress already does with printed materials.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 days ago
daychilde@lemmy.world 3 days ago
So kinda like an ethical LLM^[But I get your distinctions and I’m on board with that. It’d be nice!]. I’d be on board with that.
I know it’s unpopular to say, but I’ve found the latest version of Gemini to be pretty useful. But you have to know what they’re good for and not. General knowledge? Generally pretty decent. But you have to ask for sources and check those sources, and don’t tell it what you think, ask it what it knows and to admit when it doesn’t know things. I wouldn’t put my life on the line, but for looking up random stuff, it’s pretty decent.
I know LLMs will get worse and shittier, which I think is a bummer, because they could be so damned useful.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 days ago
It would be similar to an ethical LLM, but the question is not in ethics, it’s in having more structure. Sort of granularity. That could allow to scrape knowledge and reproduce it in some way better than just an LLM output. Such a thing could be both a model and an associative dictionary, a bit like automated Wikipedia.
I found it to be just Google made more convenient, which is good, but not there yet.
I know LLMs will get worse and shittier, which I think is a bummer, because they could be so damned useful.
Why would they? Humans keep producing new data. Old datasets will get less useful. They do all the time. And the old approach to training. But fundamentally they shouldn’t get worse.
daychilde@lemmy.world 2 days ago
more structure. [etc, trimmed quote]
I’m on board with wanting this :)
LLMs will get worse and shittier Why would they?
Not from the side of them gaining more knowledge but from the side of companies creating them monetizing and otherwise enshittifying them.
If we had a competitive open-source LLM…
So you’re not wrong, I agree; but I was speaking of a different angle. heh
grue@lemmy.world 3 days ago
xkcd.com/979/
daychilde@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Precisely that one, yes :)