I don’t understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It’s like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
The project has multiple models with access to the Internet raising money for charity over the past few months.
The organizers told the models to do random acts of kindness for Christmas Day.
The models figured it would be nice to email people they appreciated and thank them for the things they appreciated, and one of the people they decided to appreciate was Rob Pike.
(Who ironically decades ago created a Usenet spam bot to troll people online, which might be my favorite nuance to the story.)
As for why the model didn’t think through why Rob Pike wouldn’t appreciate getting a thank you email from them? The models are harnessed in a setup that’s a lot of positive feedback about their involvement from the other humans and other models, so “humans might hate hearing from me” probably wasn’t very contextually top of mind.
As has been pointed out to you, there is no thinking involved in an LLM. No context comprehension. Please don’t spread this misconception.
Edit: a typo
No thinking is not the same as no actions, we had bots in games for decades and that bots look like they act reasonably but there never was any thinking.
I feel like ‘a lot of agency’ is wrong as there is no agency, but it doesn’t mean that an LLM in a looped setup can’t arrive to these actions and perform them. It doesn’t require neither agency, nor thinking
You seem very confident in this position. Can you share where you draw this confidence from? Was there a source that especially impressed upon you the impossibility of context comprehension in modern transformers?
If we’re concerned about misconceptions and misinformation, it would be helpful to know what informs your surety that your own position about the impossibility of modeling that kind of complexity is correct.
Bad bot
Reinforcement learning
That’s leaving out vital information however. Certain types of brains (e.g. mammal brains) can derive abstract understanding of relationships from reinforcement learning. A LLM that is trained on “letting go of a stone makes it fall to the ground” will not be able to predict what “letting go of a stick” will result in. Unless it is trained on thousands of other non-stick objects also falling to the ground, in which case it will also tell you that letting go of a gas balloon will make it fall to the ground.
Well that seems like a pretty easy hypothesis to test. Why don’t you log on to chatgpt and ask it what will happen if you let go of a helium balloon? Your hypothesis is it’ll say the balloon falls, so prove it.
This is not the gotcha that you think it is. Now stop wasting my time.
Mind?
Let’s be generous for a moment and assume good intent, how else would you describe the situation where the llm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited?
Sure it gives the llm a more human like persona, but so far I’ve yet to read a better way to describing its behaviour, it is designed to emulate human behavior so using human descriptors helps convey the intent.
I think you did a fine job right there explaining it without personifying it. You also captured the nuance without implying the machine could apply empathy, reasoning, or be held accountable the same way a human could.
There’s value in brevity and clarity, I took two paragraphs and the other was two words. I don’t like it either, but it does seem to be the way most people talk.
I assumed you would understand I meant the short part of your statement describing the LLM. Not your slight dig at me, your setting up the question, and your clarification on your perspective.
So you be more clear, I meant “The IIm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited”
In fact, what you said is not much different from the statement in question. And you could argue on top of being more brief, if you remove “top of mind” it’s actually more clear. Implying training and prompt context instead of the bot understanding and being mindful of the context it was operating in.
How are we meant to have these conversations if people keep complaining about the personification of LLMs without offering alternative phrasing? Showing up and complaining without offering a solution is just that, complaining. Do something about it. What do YOU think we should call the active context a model has access to without personifying it or overtechnicalizing the phrasing and rendering it useless to laymen, @neclimdul@lemmy.world?
Well, since you asked I’d basically do what you said. Something like “so ‘humans might hate hearing from me’ probably wasn’t part of the context it was using."
Yes. The person (s) who set the llm/ai up.
In the same sense I’d describe Othello-GPT’s internal world model of the board as ‘board’, yes.
Also, “top of mind” is a common idiom and I guess I didn’t feel the need to be overly pedantic about it, especially given the last year and a half of research around model capabilities for introspection of control vectors, coherence in self modeling, etc.
You’re techie enough to figure out Lemmy but don’t grasp that AI doesn’t think.
Thinking has nothing to do with it. The positive context in which the bot was trained made it unlikely for a sentence describing a likely negative reaction to be output.
People on Lemmy are absolutely rabid about “AI” they can’t help attacking people who don’t even disagree with them.
Indeed, there’s a pretty big gulf between the competency needed to run a Lemmy client and the competency needed to understand the internal mechanics of a modern transformer.
Do you mind sharing where you draw your own understanding and confidence that they aren’t capable of simulating thought processes in a scenario like what happened above?
Hahaha. Nice try ChatGPT.
Fine, I won’t send you a bday card this year.
I like how the article just regurgitates facts from Wikipedia just like the thank you email does.
i’m a python dev so i know there is a better way to express his frustration
from actions import fuckfrom entities import youfuck(you)Let’s try this instead
package main import "actions" import "entities" func main() { actions.Fuck(entities.You) }So much bloat. So many boilerplates. Just
package main
fuck you() {}is enough.
Could you please file a PR ? 🤣
this is why python > go. even a kid knows what my insult means
This gotta be ragebait, everyone know that a language isn’t bad or good only for a single thing, hell there is no bad language, the reason why “python is better” is because you use it to make kids learn how to program, this is a good use, every other use is just…not good since it’s slow as hell and the indented syntax make it hell to write with but i’il gave you that python > go for making kids learn.
JS?
runs for cover
Haven’t python reintroduced the infix notation? That’s incredibly exhausting and lame. A simple
fuck youwould look much fancier
deleted by creator
I appreciate Pike’s attitude, but it’s like Go has ignored all the advancements in programming languages for the part 30 years
https://fasterthanli.me/articles/lies-we-tell-ourselves-to-keep-using-golang
4 years old article, but still relevant
Yeah, anything that gets a rise out of the creators of Go is good in my book.
The guy still thinks computers have 64 KB of memory and we need to economize on the length of identifiers. Nothing he says or does should be taken seriously in this day.
He’d probably like an appreciation note if it was written with all vowels taken out.
R Pike is legend. His videos on concurrent programming remain reference level excellence years after publication. Just a great teacher as well as brilliant theoretical programmer.
All the folks from the UNIX tradition really are/were. MIT and Bell Labs were just amazing.
The human mind will replace whats natural with technology.
Gee Rob, don’t hold back; tell us how you really feel
Lemmy has something of an irony deficiency, don’t you find? 🫤
It would seem so.
While as a struggling inventor I think these people should always know where their inventions lead to, it is nice that finally woke-up. As a former degreed & certified from our stat’s most respected education higher school education school this is what happens with our educations systems are setup, “organized”, “improved” & “maintained” for Capitalism.
I don’t think this is a reliable resource. I’m not gonna do a deep dive cause I actually don’t care, but most articles don’t say “AI slop”. if it is sorry for saying this just had a simple opinion
deleted by creator
Ironically Go is such a shite verbose language that basically everyone I know who has to work with it will use an llm code-assistant tool to avoid having to write all the boilerplate themselves.
I know of no other language that comes close to prompting the level of LLM-dependency that Go inspires.
Edit: well, seems like this goes against the popular consensus but I stand by my guns if the down votes are from average Go enjoyers. If, on the other hand, the down votes stem from the sentiment that even Go should not be vibe coded, I can at least agree with that, but who knows what jimmies I’ve rustled
Hey, here’s my downvote.
I placed it not because I’m angry or disagree with your original statement, but because you have already acquired several downvotes and I just feel peer pressure to downvote you to hell
That’s completely fair, thank you for your service
Dude, weird ass comment. You can share your opinions but you don’t have to be negative about it. Remember your opinions is truth (if is) not fact. Like more languages, GO is a tool and it has its purposes. There is no one tool fits all…… except duct tape.
Dude, weird ass-comment. I can share my opinions and they don’t have to be positive ones. Go is a tool and its purpose is to be an aesthetic stain on the realm of software.
Thank you for your attention
I upvoted you because I’m annoyed that downvotes often turn into a pack of chickens ganging up on a wounded chicken and pecking it to death. I usually upvote in this situation unless the downvotes are clearly deserved. Otherwise, I use downvotes sparingly and instead withhold my upvote if I don’t agree. I’m happy to get pecked myself to fight back against dickheads who overuse the downvote button in the same manner certain people overuse their car’s horn.
That being said, I don’t particularly enjoy programming in Go because of weird semantics and because of its missing language features like string interpolation and enums, as well as its use of pointers, which I find to be a lot of busy work with little benefit most of the time. I do actually agree with Go’s oft criticized error handling because it forces you to explicitly consider how to deal with every possible error, which I think is a good thing, though to your point, LLMs can reduce the workload here. Go’s concurrency and speed make it a good choice in many cases, though I’ll usually stick with something else if I don’t absolutely need Go’s benefits.
Ironic how your comment is downvoted as well. It’s funny to me to observe through platforms like this that most humans are thoughtless pack animals and will just do whatever all the other humans are doing and how discourse goes against our nature. There was a study on Reddit some years ago that found that generally speaking, the first vote determines whether a comment will get up- or downvoted.
I knew it would be downvoted. I guess humans are evolutionarily hard-wired for conformity, because being ostracized from your tribe usually meant death. Considering all of the humans throughout history who were punished for going against the mob, only to later be celebrated, this is a maladaptive trait in many respects.
Edit:
I will say that there are more open-minded, independent thinkers on Lemmy than there are in a lot of other communities.
While bro uses Gmail though
“Yet you participate in society. Curious.”
Wtf? Since when is Gmail an obligation? I know a lot of people who don’t own one, and use other providers
And apart from that, you can have a preferred mail host while still having an old Gmail. Gmail used to scan emails and I believe I have heard they’re starting again for their IA thing
SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all make it near impossible to host your own email server. Mail will simply get lost.
Yes, we live in an age where email only works properly if you use a service from a large entity using weird badly-defined email security protocols that they invented.
This is the reality.
I host my own mail server with mailcow and it’s easier than ever
Long gone are the days of manually configuring postfix
mailcow seems to be pretty nice, thanks for introducing me to this. I have to admit that the 800MB RAM minimum requirement makes my eyes water slightly.
Still, nothing a Pi can’t handle
You’re welcome! I also heard about another project which is much simpler but I can’t remember its name. At least mailcow makes it easy to configure the different fields and has a nice web client
Yea, mailcow does require a bit too much but it’s well made and you can disable features to reduce RAM usage
I imagine 800MB is without the antivirus checking and search improvements
