Neither actually, according to the article. They are afraid the customers who let AI loose on their own accounts will withdraw too much deposits to invest so that the banks can’t give out loans anymore. I wish I were making this up…

It’s a duckduckgo shorthand (called bangs) to search directly on Wikipedia.

Oh damn. I meant their website, but I didn’t notice they just embed a Twitch stream on their website, thought it was a self-hosted stream. Never mind me.

Well that website links to livestream.eff.org, and that page says the stream will be “simulcast”, i.e. mirrored, to Twitch and Youtube. So the main channel is indeed free.

You might be a few years behind. We have robots outpacing human performance in specific tasks using neural networks.

Might well be behind here, but to my knowledge we don’t have a single robot outpacing a single human in most tasks. They don’t do one-shot learning from their mistakes, they don’t learn new movements randomly. Because most basically just use static weights when operating, because you don’t really want an industrial robot to get ideas. But even test systems that can learn usually just have an equivalent to the movement model of a brain, maybe a vision model, just like an LLM is just a language model. You would need a system that has all of those, plus the other brain areas, especially a prefrontal cortex like model for integration.

I’m sure people are working on it, but I haven’t heard of anything successful yet. I imagine there might be a being like that in secret which is currently tortured in some billionaires tech dungeon. Poor thing.

Also, LLMs can perform on tasks they weren’t explicitly trained for. This line is not as well defined as you make it sound.

Yeah but that’s coincidental. It’s the model weights, prompt, and the RNG aligning. They can mock reasoning, because they do it by what they always do, predict more text, but it’s not like this has any effect on themselves. They aren’t really understanding a mistake when you point it out and growing neurons and synapses, i.e. they won’t have different model weights the next time you ask the same question. They can only really change when the powers that be release an update, which includes new training data, and hence model weights.

No they hallucinate because they lose context but are tasked to answer anyways.

Nothing to do with context. Context windows are an LLM specific thing, but all neural networks no matter the kind or size “hallucinate” because they are a piece of linear algebra where you put numbers in on one side and get numbers out the other.

If you can’t see the difference between a compiler and a large language model

If you can’t see the difference between a given example and the underlying logic…

And if the entirety of your argument is a mystic “and all that stuff”

What, you want me to list the entirety of sciences downstream from physics that are involved in generating and predicting movement in mammals? Because that could, like, take a while…

That’s… the joke. The original proposition was that AI code bans can’t be enforced, a thought which I was leading ad absurdum.

I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.

“Murder bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place”

What do you mean? That’s exactly how LLMs work. That’s why they “hallucinate”.

I’m just a movement generator.

Which is way more complex than just predicting text, because you have to predict physics and all that stuff. There is a reason most robots controlled by neural nets have failed hilariously so far.

then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?

By that logic you could say a compiler is reasoning. But the reasoning displayed was happening when the compiler (or LLM training material respectively) was written.

Nah the original clearly says “Leserkommentare”, so it’s user comments.

Well the script tag has a deprecated attribute called language, so in older code and media you will see <script language="javascript"> a bunch. The weird thing is they instead used the lang attribute which just doesn’t exist.

Some later part of the Risen RPG series IIRC.

IDK man, console access and cheats are still pretty common for PC games. Although there are exceptions too, at least one game series I know, first few titles had console access and cheats, then they removed it after they stupidly left DLC content accessible through console commands in the base game… Which is pretty much an example of what OP claimed. So maybe it’s not always the reason, but it sure is sometimes.

I think you mean *wields.

Although *yields would also make sense in this particular context. :D

Man fuck Axel Voss! Damn copyright shill. Guess we can take solace in the fact that he seemed to be the only one clearly taking the publishers side here.

And if I’m not mistaken, the European Commission representative argued in his reply to Voss (around 12:20) that “collective management organisations” or “cultural heritage institutions” might well be allowed to preserve games that are not commercially available anymore already under the current framework.

Well yeah kind of, except for the caveat that there are some things in those tests a website can’t really check. The tests are standardised and publicly available. There isn’t really any reason to not implement a (half-way) proper test, even if you are just harvesting data.

Above average that has to count for something right?

Well they aren’t though, 345/1000 people having a worse score than you means there are 654/1000 people who have a better score.

“IQ 100” is a moving target that gets regularly updated to the new average (which relatively speaking has been mostly climbing for decades).

Bad news buddy, that’s exactly how you become a programmer. /irony