We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
Isn’t everyone just sick of his bullshit though?
US tax payers clearly aren’t since they’re subsidising his drug habit.
If we had direct control over how our tax dollars were spent, things would be different pretty fast. Might not be better, but different.
At this point a significant part of the country would decide to airstrike US primary schools to stop wasting money and indoctrinating kids.
More guns?
adding missing information and deleting errors
Which is to say, “I’m sick of Grok accurately portraying me as an evil dipshit, so I’m going to feed it a bunch of right-wing talking points and get rid of anything that hurts my feelings.”
That is definitely how I read it.
History can’t just be ‘rewritten’ by A.I. and taken as truth. That’s fucking stupid.
It’s truth in Whitemanistan though
“and then on retrain on that”
Thats called model collapse.
[My] translation: “I want to rewrite history to what I want”.
That was my first impression, but then it shifted into “I want my AI to be the shittiest of them all”.
Why not both?
He’s been frustrated by the fact that he can’t make Wikipedia ‘tell the truth’ for years. This will be his attempt to replace it.
There are thousands of backups of wikipedia, and you can download the entire thing legally, for free.
He’ll never be rid of it.
Wikipedia may even outlive humanity, ever so slightly.
Wikipedia may even outlive humanity, ever so slightly.
Seconds after the last human being dies, the Wikipedia page is updated to read:
Humans (Homo sapiens) or modern humans were the most common and widespread species of primate
And then 30 seconds after that it’ll get reverted because the edit contains primary sources.
“Deleting Errors” should sound alarm bells in your head.
And the adding missing information doesn’t. Isn’t that just saying we are going to make shit up.
“If we take this 0.84 accuracy model and train another 0.84 accuracy model on it that will make it a 1.68 accuracy model!”
~Fucking Dumbass
1.68 IQ move
More like 0.7056 IQ move.
Elon Musk, like most pseudo intellectuals, has a very shallow understanding of things. Human knowledge is full of holes, and they cannot simply be resolved through logic, which Mush the dweeb imagines.
Uh, just a thought. Please pardon, I’m not an Elon shill, I just think your argument phrasing is off.
How would you know there are holes in understanding, without logic. How would you remedy gaps of understanding in human knowledge, without the application of logic to find things are consistent?
You have to have data to apply your logic too.
If it is raining, the sidewalk is wet. Does that mean if the sidewalk is wet, that it is raining?
There are domains of human knowledge that we will never have data on. There’s no logical way for me to 100% determine what was in Abraham Lincoln’s pockets on the day he was shot.
When you read real academic texts, you’ll notice that there is always the “this suggests that,” “we can speculate that,” etc etc. The real world is not straight math and binary logic. The closest fields to that might be physics and chemistry to a lesser extent, but even then - theoretical physics must be backed by experimentation and data.
Thanks I’ve never heard of data. And I’ve never read an academic text either. Condescending pos
So, while I’m ironing out your logic for you, “what else would you rely on, if not logic, to prove or disprove and ascertain knowledge about gaps?”
You asked a question, I gave an answer. I’m not sure where you get “condescending” there. I was assuming you had read an academic text, so I was hoping that you might have seen those patterns before.
You would look at the data for gaps, as my answer explained. You could use logic to predict some gaps, but not all gaps would be predictable. Mendeleev was able to use logic and patterns in the periodic table to predict the existence of germanium and other elements, which data confirmed, but you could not logically derive the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons without the later experimentations of say, JJ Thompson and Rutherford.
You can’t just feed the sum of human knowledge into a computer and expect it to know everything. You can’t predict “unknown unknowns” with logic.
Spoiler: He’s gonna fix the “missing” information with MISinformation.
She sounds Hot
She’s unfortunately can’t see you because of financial difficulties. You gotta give her money like I do. One day, I will see her in person.
I wonder how many papers he’s read since ChatGPT released about how bad it is to train AI on AI output.
So just making shit up.
Don’t forget the retraining on the made up shit part!
So they’re just going to fill it with Hitler’s world view, got it.
Typical and expected.
I mean, this is the same guy who said we’d be living on Mars in 2025.
In a sense, he’s right. I miss good old Earth.
The thing that annoys me most is that there have been studies done on LLMs where, when trained on subsets of output, it produces increasingly noisier output.
Sources (unordered):
- What is model collapse?
- AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data
- Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loop
- Collapse of Self-trained Language Models
Whatever nonsense Muskrat is spewing, it is factually incorrect. He won’t be able to successfully retrain any model on generated content. At least, not an LLM if he wants a successful product. If anything, he will be producing a model that is heavily trained on censored datasets.
It’s not so simple, there are papers on zero data ‘self play’ or other schemes for using other LLM’s output.
Distillation is probably the only one you’d want for a pretrain, specifically.
deleted by creator
Whatever. The next generation will have to learn to trust whether the material is true or not by using sources like Wikipedia or books by well-regarded authors.
The other thing that he doesn’t understand (and most “AI” advocates don’t either) is that LLMs have nothing to do with facts or information. They’re just probabilistic models that pick the next word(s) based on context. Anyone trying to address the facts and information produced by these models is completely missing the point.
Thinking wikipedia or other unbiased sources will still be available in a decade or so is wishful thinking. Once the digital stranglehold kicks in, it’ll be mandatory sign-in with gov vetted identity provider and your sources will be limited to what that gov allows you to see. MMW.
Wikipedia is quite resilient - you can even put it on a USB drive. As long as you have a free operating system, there will always be ways to access it.
I keep a partial local copy of Wikipedia on my phone and backup device with an app called Kiwix. Great if you need access to certain items in remote areas with no access to the internet.
They may laugh now, but you’re gonna kick ass when you get isekai’d.
Yes. There will be no websites only AI and apps. You will be automatically logged in to the apps. Linux, Lemmy will be baned. We will be classed as hackers and criminals. We probably have to build our own mesh network for communication or access it from a secret location.
Can’t stop the signal.
The other thing that he doesn’t understand (and most “AI” advocates don’t either) is that LLMs have nothing to do with facts or information. They’re just probabilistic models that pick the next word(s) based on context.
That’s a massive oversimplification, it’s like saying humans don’t remember things, we just have neurons that fire based on context
LLMs do actually “know” things. They work based on tokens and weights, which are the nodes and edges of a high dimensional graph. The llm traverses this graph as it processes inputs and generates new tokens
You can do brain surgery on an llm and change what it knows, we have a very good understanding of how this works. You can change a single link and the model will believe the Eiffel tower is in Rome, and it’ll describe how you have a great view of the colosseum from the top
The problem is that it’s very complicated and complex, researchers are currently developing new math to let us do this in a useful way
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.
Edit - this is why the US is fucked.
Wikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn’t mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That’s why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it’s limitations, I think a lot of people don’t though.
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven’t found one that’s even close to outright wrong.
Yeah because 1. obviously this is what everybody does. And 2. Just because sources are provided does not mean they are in any way balanced.
The fact that you would consider this sort of response acceptable justification of wikipedia might indicate just how weak wikipedia is.
Edit - if only you could downvote reality away.
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.
Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics. The trick is what sources are considered “reliable” and what topics are “notable”, which is why it’s such a poor source of information for things like contemporary politics in particular.
A bit more than fifteen years ago I was burned out in my very successful creative career, and decided to try and learn about how the world worked.
I noticed opposing headlines generated from the same studies (published in whichever academic journal) and realised I could only go to the source: the actual studies themselves. This is in the fields of climate change, global energy production, and biospheric degradation. The scientific method is much degraded but there is still some substance to it. Wikipedia no chance at all. Academic papers take a bit of getting used to but coping with them is a skill that most people can learn in fairly short order. Start with the abstract, then conclusion if the abstract is interesting. Don’t worry about the maths, plenty of people will look at that, and go from there.
I also read all of the major works on Western beliefs on economics, from the Physiocrats (Quesnay) to modern monetary theory. Read books, not websites/a website edited by who knows which government agencies and one guy who edited a third of it. It is simple: the cost of production still usually means more effort, so higher quality, provided you are somewhat discerning of the books you buy.
This should not even be up for debate. The fact it is does go some way to explain why the US is so fucked.
___Books are not immune to being written by LLMs spewing nonsense, lies, and hallucinations, which will only make more traditional issue of author/publisher biases worse. The asymmetry between how long it takes to create misinformation and how long it takes to verify it has never been this bad.
Media literacy will be very important going forward for new informational material and there will be increasing demand for pre-LLM materials.
Yes I know books are not immune to llm’s. The classics are all already written - I would suggest peple start with them.
Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics
Absolutely nowhere near. This is why America is fucked.
Again, read the rest of the comment. Wikipedia very much repeats the views of reliable sources on notable topics - most of the fuckery is in deciding what counts as “reliable” and “notable”.
And again. Read my reply. I refuted this idiotic. take.
You allowed yourselves to be dumbed down to this point.
You had started to make a point, now you are just being a dick.
No. You calling me a ‘dick’ negates any point you might have had. In fact you had none. This is a personal attack.
So what would you consider to be a trustworthy source?
Lol turns out elon has no fucking idea about how llms work
It’s pretty obvious where the white genocide “bug” came from.
