A core point of the article is that the vast majority of the world is filled with incompetent people who lack basic truth-finding skills, but that you shouldn't inform your opinion of your own correctness based on that fact.
Maybe, being exceptionally generous, you could posit that any given individual only is informed enough about some small subset of things that they hold opinions about. But in my experience, "believing you should have good reasons for the beliefs you hold" is a pretty all-or-nothing affair. Some people will have well-thought out justifications for pretty much any belief they hold, more will have no justification for any belief the hold. It's pretty well-correlated with intelligence, which is backed up by studies that have found that more intelligent people are better at coming up with justifications for their actions. It's not unreasonable to assume that carries over to beliefs.
The core takeaway is to ignore the drooling masses that disagree with you (or agree with you!). Their beliefs have no correlation with truth, and thus do not provide addition evidence for nor against a given belief. You should only adjust your priors based on interactions with people who actually know what they're talking about.
Have a look around for token biasing, or green lists. It's based on a nudge to the choice of the next token (which can always be drawn from a set of possibilities which are all probable enough).
At first I thought this approach was just the "LLM flavour" of writing, but it's way more subtle, especially as the bias is applied uniquely for each token position.
Can I suggest you take a look at Cuis Smalltalk (a simplified fork from squeak), and any of the talks given by Juan Vuletich (main author of cuis). In Cuis, Juan took morphic back to basics and updated it heavily. Now submorphs use relative geometry (not absolute), and everything is hardware accelerated vector graphics - EVEN THE FONTS.
Seriously, reading Unicode enhanced code in a 45 degree tilted editor window, while zooming in and out just for kicks (all of this can be done by manipulating the morph with its halo's menu) just to see how crisp everything is - thats FUN!
Also, try taking apart the standard system browser (4 panes + editor), rearrange everything as per your tastes (by drag & drop), and ... everything still works
I feel like many of the posts are like hypothetical "if I had a wife and kids this is what I would tell her" - hard to tell if any of these people are actual parents.
> We couldn't start verification. You may not be eligible for this verification flow right now. Please try again later, or contact support if you think this is a mistake.
Yes, though for better results in production, after creating your tool json, use the provided data synthesis and fine-tuning pipeline. It tunes on on your mac.
I suspect it's because of alignment concerns. The more deeply they can integrate their principles, the harder it'll be to misuse. Or at least that's the idea.
Just to keep things in perspective - I think Paris syndrome is something that many people from all parts of the world have experienced. Especially in the age of Instagram, it's not uncommon to get to a place that has been hyped up on social media and feel very underwhelmed. Japan has just given a name to it.
Regarding the issue with idols needing to conceal their relationships, you need to keep in mind that the whole "idol" industry basically caters to the Japanese equivalent of "incels" - men who have trouble socializing and who are often emotionally underdeveloped. I've seen similar unrealistic expectations of reality and coddled behavior from subcultures in the US, such as gamers. (To be clear - I'm not criticizing all gamers here, just certain controversies within the subculture that have gained media attention in recent years).
it's a statistical way. like for example maybe in your above paragraph claude maybe writes "Thus, I don't see how this wouldn't be insanely <easy>(instead of trivial) to remove" and then also says like "And this is before we <analyze> things being put on the clipboard." or maybe the i just says the word "the" in a certain pattern or frequency.
you can then consistently like figure out if it was claude that wrote the sentence. it is easy as you noted if you just get another ai to read it and then rewrite it.
The worst thing is that there is nothing technical preventing this kind of service from running fully local. All the audio is already being routed to any participant and transcription models are lightweight enough and can run in virtually any computer.
He would have to be using the social security numbers for some nefarious purpose for it to be exploitation.
He was merely commenting on the ridiculousness of their availability. If you don’t see that, you’re reading your bias and postconcieved notions into the situation.
I have often thought that without LLMs humanizing outputs they would not have caught on, even if they output the exact same data/answers. The way they answer is way more important than their output for success, IMO.
Ah, another failure point on our end! So a simple "5 + 7" and "add 5 and 7" works. But to handle ambiguity, the python package ships pipelines to synthesize augmentations and fine-tune on your samples for robustness. Just run "needle playground" and use the UI. Apologies.
Can someone who knows the law explain to me how someone who lives in California, and hooks his computer in California, to a wire in California, from a company in California...
At what point do they become subject to Illinois law?
And can Illinois prosecute someone for doing something that is legal in California while they are in California?
There is pretty solid case law for the constitutionality of a variety of compliance requirements. If you can comply by being silent then they aren't really compelling you to do say anything.
