I taught myself to touch-type when I was a schoolkid using something similar to Mavis Beacon. All the while, I had a voice in my head saying, “This is pointless, everyone will be talking to their computers like in Star Trek in a couple of years”. Well, that was the 90s and it turned out to be one of the most useful skills I taught myself - but surely the age of the keyboard must soon be coming to an end now??
Eh, that’s pretty metal.
It’s definitely pretty, and as thermite is a mixture of metal powder and metal oxide, your statement is entirely correct.
ah they were making a nice and lame pun (anova brand == another brand)
You’re not being naive, the comment was joking about the meme incorrectly using “starring” (the gerund of “to star” as in “Cillian Murphy is starring in this movie”) when the meme creator clearly meant to use “staring”, the gerund of “to stare”.
They are remarkably useful. Of course there are dangers relating to how they are used, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending they are useless accomplishes nothing.
It models only use of language
This phrase, so casually deployed, is doing some seriously heavy lifting. Lanuage is by no means a trivial thing for a computer to meaningfully interpret, and the fact that LLMs do it so well is way more impressive than a casual observer might think.
If you look at earlier procedural attempts to interpret language programmatically, you will see that time and again, the developers get stopped in their tracks because in order to understand a sentence, you need to understand the universe - or at the least a particular corner of it. For example, given the sentence “The stolen painting was found by a tree”, you need to know what a tree is in order to interpret this correctly.
You can’t really use language *unless* you have a model of the universe.
they, in fact, will have some understanding
These models have spontaneously acquired a concept of things like perspective, scale and lighting, which you can argue is already an understanding of 3D space.
What they do not have (and IMO won’t ever have) is consciousness. The fact we have created machines that have understanding of the universe without consciousness is very interesting to me. It’s very illuminating on the subject of what consciousness is, by providing a new example of what it is not.
They absolutely do contain a model of the universe which their answers must conform to. When an LLM hallucinates, it is creating a new answer which fits its internal model.
a/s/l?