I presume the idea is to generate a base idea with ai then correct it with real time data.
Like the way go AI has one part to make a ‘policy’ of moves and a second part to simulate (‘read’) the results of those moves many steps ahead.
I presume the idea is to generate a base idea with ai then correct it with real time data.
Like the way go AI has one part to make a ‘policy’ of moves and a second part to simulate (‘read’) the results of those moves many steps ahead.
introduced over 10 years ago in version 21.04.
My, how time flies.
If someone gives you a heavy bookcase wrong, also instant crush.
Nah, more that I forget how dumb people can be sometimes: I was reminded recently that there’s plenty of examples of people spouting LLM-like answers; but I still contend that even most people, trusted in their proper areas, talk with meaning and comprehension.
As to LLMs, perhaps I haven’t given them enough chance. But I have experimented a while myself, read reports of others, and delved into the understanding of how their mathematical models work. So I’m not exactly clueless.
Beware the Great Eye of Google. Ever it roams, ever it watches.
Okay I misread that title as “Casio made a One Ring alternative”
I think that’s still different from what I’m thinking of of interim steps, though.
…but as I think how to explain I realize I’m about to blather about things I don’t understand, or at least haven’t had time to think about! So I’d better leave it there!
And I would argue that’s utter nonsense and the very existence of sane rational speech disproves it.
I reckon we can get a lot closer than an LLM in time. For one thing, the mind has particular understanding of interim steps whereas, as I understand it, the LLM has no real concept of meaning between the inputs and the output. Some of this interim is, I think, an important part of how we assess truthfulness of generated ideas before we put them into words.
That is a good point, though the architecture of computer neutral networks is inspired by how we think the brain works, and if I understand correctly there is some definite similarity in the architecture.
Lots of difference though, still!
I prefer to poop on a logarithmic scale.
How long till Apple photos inserts iPods into the background of your favourite childhood photos?
“Subscribe to premium to (temporarily) remove branding from your family memories!”
Not advanced maths per se; neural networks are amazing! Fuzzy matching based on experience - taken to an incredible level. And, tuneable by internal simulation (imagination).
Oh we absolutely do. And we tell lies, and we misunderstand, and miscommunicate.
But not all the time, and not everyone. So if your friend if they’d like dinner, you expect the answer to be true to what they want, not just whatever sounds good to the general population. If you read a scientific journal, you expect the scientists to represent the facts and even the meaning of their research, not parrot some ideas from a half-forgotten textbook. And if you see a professional counsellor, you expect them to have a good understanding of human nature, and to genuinely empathise with your situation, and have good ways to help you out.
And of course all three of those examples fail sometimes, which is why as part of life we learn who we can trust and to what extent.
Ah, well, if the vegetable oil has been brominated by the council of bros, it should be all good, bro.
Rehab is Stardew Valley, right? Stop automating and just plant your crops by hand each day.
Say hello to the destroyer worm on Volcanus
That sounds legendary.
Only if you reroll it through your quality-modded assembler enough times.
Thing is, consider Google maps. It’s been harvesting data secretly and openly for a long time. I vaguely remember a time when Street View cars were found to be harvesting WiFi information in Australia and their response was, “oops, our engineers made a mistake.” Yeah, right.
But, Google maps is an amazing tool. All that traffic info? All those time estimates? Maybe it’s worth it. Maybe if people knew what they were providing, and the result they’d get, they’d still be happy to give all that “free” data to Google.
Putting aside the ethics of a company taking (stealing? or shall we call it, pirating?) all the ownership of that knowledge asset, if they make a really useful tool from it perhaps Pokémon players will be glad to have been part of such an epic achievement.