Aedis
@Aedis@lemmy.world
- Comment on Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly, justice department argues in court filing 4 hours ago:
Pretty sure that would count as monopoly as well and the sale wouldn’t be approved.
- Comment on flourine 3 days ago:
Except he said fluoride which is very different.
- Comment on Microsoft Edge gets "unfair advantage", browser makers claim 1 month ago:
This doesn’t make that behavior any less scummy, but have you tried using any Google website on a browser that isn’t chrome?
- Comment on Happy Birthday 2 months ago:
Raise as in how you raise a wine glass to drink from it afterwards.
- Comment on Geography 101 3 months ago:
What do you have against licorice?! (also American licorice is crap) Try this:
LAKRIDS BY BÜLOW - Læmon - 10.4 OZ - Soft Licorice Swirled in Luscious White Lemon Chocolate, Cream and Vanilla a.co/d/9bCxy5A
- Comment on Twitter 3 months ago:
This is the way.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 months ago:
The attacks by Iranian backed Hamas against Israel. Sources: www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/…/72405584007/ en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Iranian_support_for_Hamas www.cnn.com/…/h_8c4e2392d4398a8af723e09392db4494
- Comment on How bad are search results? Let's compare Google, Bing, Marginalia, Kagi, Mwmbl, and ChatGPT 9 months ago:
At least what I see with this experiment/article is that is overly verbose, he takes a long time to get to the point. And then when he does his methodology shows an experiment that cannot be verified. Even when something is “subjective” we can still draw conclusions from it if we set up proper non-subjective ways of evaluating the results we see (ie. Rubrics). The fact that he doesn’t really say what leads him to say in detail what is a “terrible/v. bad/bad/good result” is a massive red flag in his method.
After seeing that, I no longer read the rest of it. Any conclusions drawn from a flawed methodology are inherently fallacies or hearsay.
If in any case it is further explained in the article and that somehow refutes what I’ve postulated later on, then I would have to say that the article is poorly written.
All this to say… I agree with you, not worth the read.
- Comment on ELI5 How does chatgpt do its shit? 9 months ago:
Software engineer here, but not llm expert. I want to address one of the questions you had there.
Why doesn’t it occasionally respond with a hundred thousand word response? Many of the texts it’s trained on are longer than it’s usual responses.
An llm like chatgpt does some rudimentary level of pattern matching when it analyzes training data. So this is why it won’t generate a giant blurb of text unless you ask it to.
Let’s say for example one of its training inputs is a transcription of a conversation. That will be tagged “conversation” by a person. Then it will see that tag when analyzing hundreds of input texts that are conversations. Finally, the training algorithm writes down that “conversation” have responses of 1-2 sentences with x% likelyhood because that’s what the transcripts did. Now if another of the training sets is “best selling novels” it’ll store that “best selling novels have” responses" that are very long.
Chatgpt will probably insert a couple of tokens before your question to help it figure out what it’s supposed to respond: “respond to the user as if you are in a casual conversation”
This will make the model more likely to output small answers rather than giving you a giant wall of text. However it is still possible for the model to respond with a giant wall of text if you ask something that would contradict the original instructions. (hence why jailbreaking models is possible)
- Comment on Cock check 9 months ago:
😆❤️😢