The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.
The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.
Seconding this. Legitimately better than Google photos in a lot of ways, even if you don’t care about the data ownership aspect. If you’ve ever been annoyed at how Google Photos handles face detection / grouping, you’ll love Immich.
Congrats, you completely missed the point. Maybe read the actual article, before going on a rant that’s only tangentially related?
Sand won’t do anything because the fire is self-oxidizing.
From my understanding the recommendation to have a bucket of sand around when handling lithium batteries is not to put the fire out with it, but to have something to throw the battery into that’s not gonna catch fire as well, and then to carry the whole bucket somewhere where the battery can just burn out on its own. Is that wrong?
It is an algorithm that searches a dataset and when it can’t find something it’ll provide convincing-looking gibberish instead.
This is very misleading. An LLM doesn’t have access to its training dataset in order to “search” it. Producing convincing looking gibberish is what it always does, that’s its only mode of operation. The key is that the gibberish that comes out of today’s models is so convincing that it actually becomes broadly useful.
That also means that no, not everything an LLM produces has to have been in its training dataset, they can absolutely output things that have never been said before. There’s even research showing that LLMs are capable of creating actual internal models of real world concepts, which suggests a deeper kind of understanding than what the “stochastic parrot” moniker wants you to believe.
LLMs do not make decisions.
What do you mean by “decisions”? LLMs constantly make decisions about which token comes next, that’s all they do really. And in doing so, on a higher, emergent level they can make any kind of decision that you ask them to, the only question is how good those decisions are going be, which in turn entirely depends on the training data, how good the model is, and how good your prompt is.
That kind of window has been around for a long time already. Also, let me introduce you to window awnings
Revenge bedtime procrastination is the term you’re looking for. Although I’m not sure that’s actually what the OP is describing
we’re going to ostracize you from society forever
That is very different from simply not wanting him to be a representative for his country and potential role model for aspiring athletes in one of the biggest media events of the world though. Being welcomed back as a member of society is one thing, but there is a point to be made about expecting more of Olympic athletes than your average member of society.
You might be misremembering / misinterpreting a little there. This behavior is not intentional, it’s just a side effect of how the algorithm currently works. Showing you longer videos doesn’t equate to showing you more ads. On the contrary, if you get loads of short videos you’ll have way more opportunities to see pre-roll ads, but with longer videos, you’re just to just the mid-roll spots in that video. So YouTube doesn’t really have an incentive to make it work like that, it’s just accidental.
Here’s the spiffing Brit video on this, which I think you might have gotten this idea from: https://youtu.be/8iOjeb5DTZI
Edit: to be clear, I fully agree that YouTube will do anything to shove ads down our throats no matter how effective they actually are. I’m just saying that this example you’ve brought is not really that.