skygazer

Well, they got me to google what at first seemed like a far fetched conspiracy theory, but actually seems to have some truth to it.

For those similarly unaware, I guess in 2017 Myanmar's military launched a campaign of mass killings, sexual violence, and destruction of Rohingya, and 700 thousand fled to neighboring countries, according to the UN, and amnesty international, but a 150B USD lawsuit against meta by the survivors was thrown out because section 230 of the CDA makes meta immune, and the dismissal was upheld by the 9th circuit. The court did not determine that meta's behavior was harmless, just that the case was barred. At issue was poor moderation, and algorithmic amplification of genocidal messaging on the platform. Apparently facebook was repeatedly warned for years that they were contributing to enthnic hatred and violence by amplifying false narratives and took no action.

My worry is that what we recognize is the unstylized default, but it might be very easy to emulate any particular human easily enough with some examples and a prompt and n-gram/style template biasing token selection, or iterative generation-scoring loops.

You undersell. One of those is equivelent to like one hundred seventy H100s or four hundred+ RTX 5090s .. 13TB of GPU mem at 570TB per second bandwidth and 360 petaflops of FP8 tensor compute.

Oh, nice. DIY WhisperSync. I was contemplating such a thing, as well. Do you have a repository one might follow for progress?

Tower of Babel, but for software.

I think humans have to reason because we don’t already have a statistical embedding of the solution pattern built in. We have vastly less rote knowledge crammed into our heads and so require creative synthesis to span the gaps.

With LLMs the trick is revealing their existing relevant embedded knowledge more reliably. They’ve almost literally seen it all before, and the trick is dialing it in. The reasoning tokens help shape the autoregressive attention lens that focuses on and enables recall of the already-experienced answer.

It is interesting that “reasoning” has a similar outward appearance, but since LLMs are built to mimic outward appearance from trillions of examples, you can’t infer underlying mechanism from appearance.

Probably the Windows (NT) kernel, which I imagine would be a prerequisite for the Windows System/GUI. The anachronistic initialism is “New Technology” — MS in the 90s not thinking the name would survive Y2K I guess.

I think many failed/aborted projects only seem stupid in retrospect because we assume it proof they could never have succeeded .. but many ridiculous things can and do succeed and find their place. It fizzled after his death without anyone championing it with persistent care and constructive iterations. It may well have ultimately failed, regardless, but it certainly lost its motive power.

It is interesting that Meta would have to develop a social or political content identification system in order to either label, limit targeting, or ban/censor it. It seems the hard part of complying was developed, but only to thwart the law, rather than comply. That might be a bigger FU to the EU than ignoring the law.

Your text may well have been in the training corpus, but not searchable with whatever terms and search engine that LLM used after you prompted it. It doesn’t have recall of sources of documents comprising its training corpus, unless the source is widely cited in other of its training documents. Sourcing and provenance aren’t currently an intentional part of LLM training.

That may already have been obvious, and central to the complaint, but I was just knee-jerking to the anthropomorphic language.

Do you mind excerpting the valid two paragraphs?

Well, in fairness, both sides were bad, and still are -- although, now, one side is spectacularly worse. Dems can't ever agree on a candidate or position or message, and intentionally run candidates the otherside would abhore, and Republicans would happily vote in unison for an old shoe as long as it was sufficiently dog-whistley.

It may be turtles all the way down, but we don't want to need to visit each tier, wading through obvious slop engineered for engagement as we go. The sloppiness reveals the low effort machinery meant to sap our vital attention and time. It's probably best to build a growing resistance to it.

… but, a power power user would know that it was transparently saved every several keystrokes, even while named Untitled and ostensibly unsaved, ready for immediate transparent recovery on relaunch, after an app or system crash -- so they might again be okay with it.

Like an idiot, I once wrote a simple, internal, in memory chat room via web page at work. Because it let you pick a nickname, co-workers immediately gave themselves names of other employees and started sexually harassing each other and being asses. I pulled it down immediately before they got me fired. Anonymity does something to some people. They lurk among us biding their time, looking for any opportunity to be reputationally unrestrained.