I wonder if the OpenAI habit of naming their models after the previous ones' embarrassing failures is meant as an SEO trick. Google "chatgpt strawberry" and the top result is about o1. It may mention the origin of the codename, but ultimately you're still streered to marketing material.
Either way, I'm looking forward to their upcoming AI models Malpractice, Forgery, KiddieSmut, ClassAction, SecuritiesFraud and Lemonparty.
The stretching is just so blatant. People who train neural networks do not write a bunch of tokens and weights. They take a corpus of training data and run a training program to generate the weights. That's why it is the training program and the corpus that should be considered the source form of the program. If either of these can't be made available in a way that allows redistribution of verbatim and modified versions, it can't be open source. Even if I have a powerful server farm and a list of data sources for Llama 3, I can't replicate the model myself without committing copyright infringement (neither could Facebook for that matter, and that's not an entirely separate issue).
There are large collections of freely licensed and public domain media that could theoretically be used to train a model, but that model surely wouldn't be as big as the proprietary ones. In some sense truly open source AI does exist and has for a long time, but that's not the exciting thing OSI is lusting after, is it?
Turns out chuds suddenly love DEI when it's about making the Russian Military Industrial Complex feel safe and included in major open source projects. My heart goes out to the victims of discrimination willingly working for military contractors who now have to submit their Linux kernel patches for review like most people.
As in a member of a race of edgelords allergic to sunlight? Very progressive of your mistress to let you post on the internet on your own. Is "Nock" the Undercommon word for mom's basement?
It's incredibly frustrating to try and figure out how this grift works. The company is bleeeing money at high pressure. The more users they get, the faster they lose money. Even if you're a true believer who thinks their product is useful and will be ubiquitous in the near future, there's no way this makes sense as an investment.
It could be a greater fool scam, but if you're goddamn Softbank, Microsoft, or NVIDIA investing hundreds of millions, surely you are the biggest fool already? Who's MSFT gonna flip their share to? Scrooge McDuck? A G7 member government? God?
Or maybe they're expecting to become so ubiquitous you can't live without ChatGPT, at which point they will jack up the price (the good old MS EEE/Oracle Hustle). I suppose that would parse, but the novelty is already fading and public sentiment is at a downward slope. Even if you're a true believer, you'd have to beat the competition first. You could also hope for a magician to come along and suddenly invent chips that are an order of magnitude more efficient, but you'd still need to pay another king's ransom to have them designed, manufactured and sold to you (and absolutely not to your competitors).
How do they get away with these bonkers numbers? They're somehow going to make 20 times more revenue in the remaining year than they have until now? They're going to nearly double their earnings every year? They're gonna fucking invest seven trillion in TSMC chip fabs? These numbers are made up by a nine-year old. My burger restaurant where we use natural diamonds as grill charcoal is gonna be worth inifite plus one zillion brazillion skibidillion dollars next year. Please invest in it.
TSMC suit: "And is the seven trillion dollars in the room with us right now?"
Uhm, actually the correct term is ~~epheb~~ oligopoly.
40 nanometers is a terrible range!
Sure, but this isn't about making copyright stricter, but just making it explicit that the existing law applies to AI tech.
I'm very critical of copyright law, but letting specifically big tech pretend like they're not distributing derivative work because it's derived from billions of works on the internet is not the gateway to copyright abolition I'd hope to see.
The phrasing "a bit less racist" suggests a nonzero level of racism in the output, yet the participants also complain about the censorship making the bot refuse to discuss sensitive topics. Sounds like these LLMs can only be boringly racist.
Holy gold what a shitmine of TechTakes this thread is.
It's justified that figures like count dankula pitch rightward when faced with persecution and left-leaning public opinion turns on them. This is the only way they can sustain and get support. Attempting to stay true to your beliefs is self destructive in these cases. Therefore on the other side of the coin, the people on the left doing it are sabotaging their "side" to satisfy personal vendettas, and people caught doing it would in a perfect world become targets of public hatred instead of their victims.
Oh, it's straight up justified to double down on nazi shit because people were mean to you for doing nazi shit?
Battery on someone is never justified for a belief or words someone says. Defeat their ideas with debate and steer them towards a non-violent resolution.
Yea that worked great in the World Debate II. Discourse of Normandy in 1945, allies stormed the Marketplace of Ideas so hard Hitler's heart grew three sizes and the nazis were convinved by liberal values after some open-minded heart-to-heart discussion.
… not through “debate” but through discussion or maybe music, see
FWIW I once got assaulted by a neo-nazi specifically for singing. Actually, both for me personally and among the people I know, having been assaulted by a nazi is way more common than having assaulted a nazi. The left is full of pacifists who disapprove of violence, even against nazis and people who approve but would not do it themselves. When's the last time you heard of a pacifist nazi?
And the top prize for the most up-its-own-ass comment of the thread goes to…
Seriously, these Nazi/Commie disputes manifest themselves in strange Windows/Linux disputes, iOS/Android disputes, Tesla/The World disputes, and so forth. In my mind it's all the same and there are many characters involved behaving in this same way.
Wow, how come I never considered that nazism is just a normal opinion like preferring a certain operating system or a car brand.
Honorable mention to the hundred varieties of "oh but how do you know someone's really a nazi before you assault them???" Do libs actually have this much of a hard time identifying a nazi or is there a widespread phenomenon of nice non-fascist type folks eating knuckle sandwiches from people mistaking them for nazis I haven't heard of?
What the hell do people think they're adding to the conversation with quips like this? We were talking about how social media personalities should be better role models. Should parents be good role models? Yes, but that's only relevant to the discussion, if you mean to imply it's not a problem that social media entertainers are bad ones, and that parents being good ones just solves any issues.