cx40

joined 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Men in Black 1997

He's the worm guy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

They did give us OpenAI gym (now Gymnasium) and PPO. It's sad that they completely pivoted away from this line of work though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

We've seen similar effects in the context of reinforcement learning (see the "primacy bias" works of Evgenii Nikishin). It makes sense that it would also apply to LLMs, and any other ML model.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Early 30s now. I've been on this path since I was 18, so I guess I'd be happy to hear that I stuck with it. I'd probably also be disappointed to hear that I'm actually kind of bad at it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They use the same symbols, but they're not bitwise operators anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I don't think your preference for cold water had anything to do with being warm-blooded. I grew up having mostly warm/hot water and still prefer it that way to this day because it's what I'm used to. I think the majority of Chinese people would tell you the same.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is a huge mess of an article. They talk about how student data should not be given out to corporations who profit from this data, parents not believing the government when they say that all data is kept on Canadian servers, concerns about Google's role in providing Chromebooks to students, mentioning the existence of collaborative projects between Mila (original developers of this risk analysis project) and Google, criticisms of generative AI in art, and a bunch of other stuff. Most importantly, they don't say anything about how any of this is supposed to be related to each other. So I get the impression that the conclusion they want the reader to draw from this is that the Quebec government is giving out student data to OpenAI or Google to process for them, but they can't outright say that because there's no evidence to support it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

And then what? At the end of the day, unless you're running the experiments yourself, you're still putting your trust in another group of experts. Either you trust that they really did what they said they did and saw what they said they saw, or you trust another group to draw the correct conclusions from a collection of studies and what they know about the topic.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The unfortunate reality is that most people don't have the skills required to critically read scientific literature.