Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

kciwsnurb

@kciwsnurb@aussie.zone

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Ask ChatGPT to pick a number between 1 and 100

Each row in the figure is a probability distribution over possible outputs (x-axis labels). The more yellow, the more likely (see the colour map on the right). With a small temperature (e.g., last row), all the probability mass is on 42. This is a low entropy distribution because if you sample from it you’ll constantly get 42, so no randomness whatsoever (think entropy as a measure of randomness/chaos). As temperature increases (rows closer to the first/topmost one), 42 is still the most likely output, but the probability mass gets dispersed to other possible outputs too (other outputs get a bit more yellow), resulting in higher entropy distributions. Sampling from such distribution gives you more random outputs (42 would still be frequent, but you’d get 37 or others too occasionally). Hopefully this is clearer.

Someone in another reply uses the word “creativity” to describe the effect of temperature scaling. The more commonly used term in the literature is “diversity”.

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Ask ChatGPT to pick a number between 1 and 100

The temperature scale, I think. You divide the logit output by the temperature before feeding it to the softmax function. Larger (resp. smaller) temperature results in a higher (resp. lower) entropy distribution.

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in How to argue for making a new plant public transit friendly

Your implicit assumption here is that both criticisms and solutions are equally easy (or difficult) to make, which is obviously not true, hence the relative quietness.

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv preprint)

come up with new and unexpected things that never existed before

I’m not sure this is possible if the tech is still primarily built by learning from data, which by definition, has existed.

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv preprint)

only in the podcasts I listen to

Yes definitely. Many of my fellow NLP researchers would disagree with those researchers and philosophers (not sure why we should care about the latter’s opinions on LLMs).

it’s using tokens, which are more like concepts than words

You’re clearly not an expert so please stop spreading misinformation like this.

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv preprint)

You seem very certain on this approach, but you gave no sources so far. Can you back this up with actual research or is this just based on your personal experience with chatgpt4?

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv preprint)

Can you provide the source of a few of these completely different LLMs?

add even a small amount of change into an LLM […] radically alter the output

You mean perturbing the parameters of the LLM? That’s hardly surprising IMO. And I’m not sure it’s convincing enough to show independence, unless you have a source for this?

kciwsnurb , to Technology in Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv preprint)

two totally independent LLMs

How do you propose to get these independent LLMs? If both are trained using similar objectives e.g., masked token prediction, then they won’t be independent.

Also, assuming independent LLMs could be obtained, how do you propose to compute this hallucination probability? Without knowing this probability, you can’t know how many verification LLMs are sufficient for your application, can you?

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

I agree with what you said about price fixing and competition. But why do you think multiple robotaxi companies will survive in the (long) future? We know that’s not what happened with Uber/Airbnb that killed their competitors with predatory pricing. How do you know this time it would be different?

Thanks for the detailed cost breakdown. You seem to have thought about this deeply. But I don’t see labour cost (e.g., engineers) in the breakdown. Why did you not include it?

I agree that the battery cost (and thus operating cost) would go down, but again I’m not convinced it would mean lower fare because that’s not what usually happens. I also agree these companies know how much money will be made on self-driving systems, which is exactly why I think they would aim for a monopoly, and the one surviving would charge passengers as high as it can.

In you and your wife’s case, is using a normal taxi 5-6 times not cheaper than the second vehicle cost?

Anyway, from what you wrote, it seems the biggest issue here is cost/fare. In that case, public transit, which we already have and benefits all people (including both the elderly and people with disabilities), would be a better solution than any taxi.

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

If the operating cost is as low as you said, why do you think these robotaxi companies wouldn’t eventually charge similar fare to normal taxis given that (1) the market can bear such fare now and (2) the reduced operating cost would give them higher profit margins?

Frankly, I’m not convinced yet that the operating cost is that much lower. Covering more areas and operating almost 24 hours a day sound like more fleet and more frequent maintenance to me. Wouldn’t these increase the operating cost, and thus, fare? Not to mention paying the engineers to maintain the software/AI system. I assume engineers are much more expensive than drivers.

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

Oops didn’t realise you aren’t the guy I replied to!

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

Just to clarify, you regard both cars and houses as death machines because nearly everyone that owns them has died?

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

I don’t follow. Are you equating houses with cars as “death machines”? If yes, how so?

kciwsnurb , (edited ) to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

And how do you think robotaxis address all these issues (high fare, poor coverage, limited operating hours)?

kciwsnurb , to Fuck Cars in Autonomous murderbot incinerated by SF Chinese New Year street partiers

I can’t tell you who/what to vote. But I’m glad we agree that the city is the issue.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •