You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.
This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.
13 hours later, it seems it’s gone. At least I cannot access it.
A design professor actually proposed this idea to us. Make the user feel how the computer is working, so they can appreciate the result more.
“Monad” is a shorter term though. “Structured data type” reads almost as bulky as “Curve of constant normal intersection points”.
Thanks again, though just for the record, that didn’t help either. It’s alright, I’m used to the Thunderbird lags. Let’s stop here :)
Yes, or if you want to learn more about this approach, search for masks, layers.
I think that’s a helpful analogy and comment. Please remember this while I go on to nitpick. I’m aiming at in both fields, there may be more math-leaning scientists and concrete-leaning workers, with the engineer being somewhat in the middle.
Declaring bridges safe probably involves a lot of math and tables in the background. I guess we don’t actually run a million trucks but estimate the safety theoretically, with a few experimental tests. Likewise, a security specialist can define the edge cases against which the tests should be run. That may be the same person who also implements the test, but I want to emphasize it’s two different roles. And we might consider one more of a scientist, and the other more of a worker.
So how much your activity resembles that of a mathematician, or a traditional engineer probably depends on your specific task, and how much your team requires you to generalize or specialize.
Then let me spell it out: If ChatGPT convinces a child to wash their hands with self-made bleach, be sure to expect lawsuits and a shit storm coming for OpenAI.
If that occurs, but no liability can be found on the side of ChatGPT, be sure to expect petitions and a shit storm coming for legislators.
We generally expect individuals and companies to behave in society with peace and safety in mind, including strangers and minors.
Liabilities and regulations exist for these reasons.
Do car manufacturers get in trouble when someone runs somebody over?
Yes, if it can be shown the accident was partially caused by the manufacturer’s neglect. If a safety measure was not in place or did not work properly. Or if it happens suspiciously more often with models from this brand. Apart from solid legal trouble, they can get into PR trouble if many people start to think that way, no matter if it’s true.
If it has the information, why not?
Naive altruistic reply: To prevent harm.
Cynic reply: To prevent liabilities.
If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that’s not on the menu, then that’s their call. Can be for many reasons, but it’s literally their business, not yours.
If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.
Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say ‘AI’ in this case. That’s odd.
I’m from your camp but noticed I used ChatGPT and the like less and less over the past months. I feel they became less and less useful and more generic. In Februar or March, they were my go to tools for many tasks. I reverted back to old-fashioned search engines and other methods, because it just became too tedious to dance around the ethics landmines, to ignore the verbose disclaimers, to convince the model my request is a legit use case. Also the error ratio went up by a lot. It may be a tame lapdog, but it also lacks bite now.
Interesting, may I ask you a question regarding uncensored local / censored hosted LLMs in comparison?
There is this idea censorship is required to some degree to generate more useful output. In a sense, we somehow have to tell the model which output we appreciate and which we don’t, so that it can develop a bias to produce more of the appreciated stuff.
In this sense, an uncensored model would be no better than a million monkeys on typewriters. Do we differentiate between technically necessary bias, and political agenda, is that possible? Do uncensored models produce more nonsense?
The obvious solution is to abandon your project not too late; leave on a high note.
I also found it very useful to document every step of my setup procedures, right after I figured out what works. At least the respective CL.
However, I think people should experiment with what I call “open source universes”, which is basically creating shared universes that are open source. Maybe even make some open source RPG system with it too, so we could have an open source alternative to the likes of D&D, WH40k, etc. At one point I tried to make something like this, but the issue was that it was based on an old webcomic idea of mine, which I started working on when I had totally different views on many things. Might revisit it with different ideas later on.
Haven’t played any of those, but I think they (and more) exist for a long time already: https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems
They’re used to a decade or longer on Twitter and Facebook. So any new and improved protocol would split the user base and so struggle to gain traction.
Could that be an inherent issue, no matter how you approach it? The issue might be that any social IT system which gains traction is already 10 years outdated. If true, it would mean we could start making something new now, which might be popular in 10 years, but then unable to effectively deal with whatever people deem essential in 10 years.
Right, I get now what you mean. In defense of the other person, they said this may be the case. Which implies that it also may not be the case. It’s a worry spoken out, maybe without thinking too much about how to word it in a way which does not come across as insulting.
I would frown at this in a direct conversation, but not so much in an indirect, general talk about opinions. In the current setting, I appreciated the opinion as open and direct. I don’t think anyone’s feelings have been hurt here, unless someone actively wants to feel offended.
OP asked for opinions, and that was an opinion.
You are right a project author can do as they please, but so can a project contributor. Both spend their mostly free time on that project, so it should be comfortable for both to do so.
There is no need to automatically agree. We can have different styles and disagree, in which case people might prefer to contribute to some other project instead, or work with other contributors instead.
If Russia keeps this invasion up for another few years, they’ll run out of soldiers.
Both countries can probably sustain these high losses if they are only willing to keep committed. If we look at WW numbers.
Just a rough calculation: If Ukraine was to send 5% of their population to the front lines, they could lose 200k each year, for more than nine years. Russia obviously more.
Yes, my favorite comment:
pulls out the power cord for the monitor
Job done!
followed by:
Attacker must have had 5 people on the keyboard.
Because religion evolved to thrive in us.
It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.
Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.
Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.
This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.
This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.