yogthos

My definition of trolling is you looking at over 40 lines of boilerplate and asking where is the boilerplate.

It's not, that's just a straw man you're building here.

I'm not just referring to you specifically here. I'm pointing out the general tone of people who come into these threads complaining about AI. It's practically never constructive, and it's always the same set of talking points that have been addressed many times here. It's worth noting the tone of your original comment though:

Yogthos is really relentless with all these AI posts. You’re not fighting for the poor defenseless AI technologies against the tyrannical masses with these posts.

You attack me for not editing the original title of the post claiming I was being antagonistic, yet you very clearly made a snide personal attack in your first comment. Then you pretend like you're the paragon of civility and I'm being unreasonable. Maybe get off your high horse, and reflect on the way you engage with people?

I didn't give the headline any thought, and it seems you're projecting an intention to antagonize onto it. My sole aim was to share the piece because of its interesting content.

I agree that it's always best when conversations can proceed constructively and without unintended antagonism. However, it's also true that those who are critical of LLMs have made similar replies to posts with titles that couldn't possibly be considered antagonistic.

To sum it up, let's "be the change we wish to see." If people make polite and constructive comments, we can have civil discussions. If people engage in sealioning or leave snarky comments, that will inevitably set a different tone for the discussion.

At the end of the day, if people aren't interested in a particular topic, they can simply choose not to comment, rather than actively trying to antagonize others and then claiming victimhood.

The title of the post is literally the title of the article. I didn't edit it in any way, and the fact that you're now blaming me for it is frankly incredible.

I made a post about something which I thought was interesting and insightful. A bunch of people came in to make snide comments and personal attacks. But turns out it's my fault that the tone of the discussion the way it is. I have absolutely no problem having a civil discussion about the topic with people who themselves act in a civil way, and want to genuinely understand the subject. I simply do not have patience to deal with people who personally attack me and do what amounts to trolling.

That whole code is boilerplate that I originally generated using an LLM from the following query write a django endpoint for handling a json payload with user information and storing it in the db. After you making it concise, it's still over 40 lines of code.

Nah, I've had plenty of disagreements with people where we were able to have a coherent discussion without anybody lashing out. What I don't take well to is low effort trolling.

Yeah, I can put up with only so much trolling. I make an effort to be constructive, and when people can't acknowledge basic things like the fact that Django has boilerplate, it becomes pointless to continue.

Nope, just people who make reactionary statements that aren't rooted in material analysis.

The point is that the LLM can produce 90% of the code here, and then you might need to tweak a couple of lines. Even with your changes, there's still very obviously a non trivial amount of boilerplate, and you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge this fact.

Firstly, “whether the development will be done in the open, accessible to everyone, and community driven” is largely not in the question when it comes to the training data itself, which is the most resource intensive aspect of this to begin with.

I don't see why. For example, tools like this already exist https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/petals

This follows the pattern of the comment threads of the other posts I’ve read on this topic, which is why I was hesitant to comment on this one to begin with. There is no point in having a conversation if you reply without showing the basic decency to read what I wrote.

Frankly, I don't understand what the actual point is that you're trying to make if it's not the one I'm addressing. As far as I'm concerned, the basic facts of the situation is that this technology currently exists, and it will continue to be developed. The only question that matters is how it will be developed and who will control it. If you think that's not correct then feel free to clearly articulate your counterpoint.