sinemetu11
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
324
Submissions
110
Member since
May 23
Recent submissions
Comment · 2 years ago
From the paper:
> Finally, we use our dataset and LRE-estimating method to build a visualization tool we call an attribute lens. Instead of showing the next token distribution like Logit Lens (nostalgebraist, 2020) the attribute lens shows the object-token distribution at each layer for a given relation. This lets us visualize where and when the LM finishes retrieving knowledge about a specific relation, and can reveal the presence of knowledge about attributes even when that knowledge does not reach the output.
They're just looking at what lights up in the embedding when they feed something in, and whatever lights up is "knowing" about that topic. The function is an approximation they added on top of the model. It's important to not conflate this with the actual weights of the model.
You can't separate the hallucinations from the model -- they exist precisely because of the lossy compression.
Comment · 3 years ago
Consider the alternative -- most people don't care about this device...how many non-video-game playing people bought a VR headset until now?
Comment · 3 years ago
Blood Meridian.
Comment · 3 years ago
So it's a big screen?
The tech looks impressive, and I'm sure many people will buy it. I'm guessing they'll also shortly after find it as exciting as their phones...
Comment · 3 years ago
They reached a wall, and need to ensure others have a more difficult path to the same place.
Comment · 4 years ago
Did the author even read the abstract let alone the paper?
> We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d−1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations.
Doesn't sound like it particularly slams years of shoddy research.
Comment · 5 years ago
I guess you could say this, but given that the planet is essentially burning it seems like we're getting way ahead of ourselves with this type of "solution" when we could be working on more important problems.
Comment · 5 years ago
Tablespoon of peanut butter really isn't any more work. It's probably less.
> How many beans equal a serving of meat?
> In general, 1 ounce of meat, poultry or fish, ¼ cup cooked beans, 1 egg, 1 tablespoon of peanut butter, or ½ ounce of nuts or seeds can be considered as 1 ounce-equivalent from the Protein Foods Group.[1]
Comment · 5 years ago
You don't understand or you don't like it?
People eat more meat than they need. Most people would be healthier if they consumed less of it or none and substituted vegetables/beans/nuts for those calories while still getting proper amounts of protein from non-meat sources.
Reducing meat consumption reduces a bunch of other consumption of resources letting people get their calories more efficiently.
> Meat is considered one of the prime factors contributing to the current biodiversity loss crisis.
> the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, and in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.
> farmers would reduce their land use of feed crops; currently representing about 75% of US land use, and would reduce the use of fertilizer due to the lower land areas and crop yields needed. A transition to a more plant based diet is also projected to improve health, which can lead to reductions in healthcare GHG emissions, currently standing at 8% of US emissions [1]
What's not to understand? Stop eating meat. We don't need lab-grown meat. We don't need meat substitutes.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...
Comment · 5 years ago
Ah yes, most people's testosterone levels would be too low without meat. lol
Regular exercise should help with metabolism and just about everything else you could imagine.
Comment · 5 years ago
Most americans would not meet suggested exercise levels for "relatively active" even if that was at the 30 min. per day level.
16% is 60% more than 10%. Most americans are consuming meat for at least 2 meals a day, possibly 3 for those who are eating sausage or bacon for breakfast.
The general point is that americans consume way more meat than what they actually need. This has been promoted heavily in the high protein diet fads recently. Educating people on what they actually need for a healthy diet would go a long way and cost a lot less than alternatives like lab-grown meat.
https://github.com/sinemetu1