Search results

Actually nah I can't help myself, I'll keep going I never said shit was getting removed from the training data by the algorithm. I was talking about the final output that the user sees. You're grasping at straws to make me look dumb but you don't even understand what the fuck I'm saying...

We must be using different definitions of the word "rare" because the thing can pass the MBA. I was not at any point talking about changing the training process. I was completely talking about a way to curate the final output with the current model. I have no idea what I said that made you...

And you would have to assume the anomalous outputs are errors. No guarantee that assumption is right. It would just be statistically more likely to be reflective of the training data. Still not actually doing any true logical thinking other than processing the math and hoping it's output is...

It would work. The limiting factor is that they already don't have enough computing power for the number of user requests they get. My proposal would involve generating something like 10-50 outputs for each input, meaning *at least 10-50x the computing power required*. Maybe they already...

And obviously the concept works better for large language models than for image generation AI. You're right that averaging together two images is more likely to be nonsense. Large language models are far more deterministic than noise diffusion image creation models, tho, so the concept is far...

There's no guarantee that a single output is a valid output either. Sometimes it's nonsense. I'm not sure what's going on with the 1s and 0s behind the scenes as far as the model using math to output natural language. But certainly there should be some way to take several random seeds, spot...

Only if you sleep with your head in a wood chipper 💙

ChatGPT doesn't allow you to input your own random seeds, but random seeds are still certainly a part of the model. See: AI image generation like Stable Diffusion where each random seed creates a unique and repeatable output based on the input prompt.

Explain to me in your own language what I got wrong.

Well it would take an enormous amount of computing power to do that for each user. But it certainly should be possible to just take the aggregate average of the output of several random seeds to create an output that is statistically more likely to be accurately reflective of the training data.

The fact that swapping one single word for it's opposite in a post where the other 99% of the language was consistent with reality was something that confused you all is fucking sad. Maybe the fact that it's fucking sad is making me too upset. But God damn it shouldn't have been that hard to...

https://scitechdaily.com/a-revolutionary-new-physics-hypothesis-three-time-dimensions-one-space-dimension/ Can't remember if I shared this before. New science as of the end of December, stuff that proves Einstein wrong.

I heard a fun term from my friend Janni the other day. "Coomer" -- a boomer whose brain is filled with cum (i.e. rotted by porn and other hypersexual media). Fits a lot of dudes here lol.

That doesn't really make sense either tho. Renner has a weird ego (see: the stories behind his social media app. Yes he made his own social media app for his fans to talk straight to him. And there's been some nutty stories that have come out of it.). Almost seems like they made a story up...

You know what this needs to go to the next level? Instead of training via the usual pair of algorithms (the classic model for machine learning being one algorithm that is good at error checking things, the other that keeps trying to adjust its own model until it can fool the error checker)...

I have lost a decent amount of weight at certain points in my life by just motivating myself to go for walks to aquire fast food. Not a bad strategy. Tho 4 blocks is on the short side for it to work out calorie wise... Maybe force yourself to take a long loop around as you munch your roller...

Hey I am an asshole, but the fact that I'm calling out the people here for their bullshit is not the reason.

This is a huge part of it if we aren't first. Outer space likely isn't even a true "vacuum." https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/10/180/htm

You genuinely think I just didn't understand what the word older meant? There's a big difference between confusing opposite terms (which is, yes, something that truly happens in dyslexia) versus just randomly calling someone out for some bullshit as if you know what you're talking about when...

Someone else back me up here. It's not that fucking hard to understand. Pharmakos: "you called me an asshole for not caring" Ambiturner: "no I called you an asshole for thinking that we shouldn't care" Pharmakos: "you clearly seem to be implying that I should also care about her big forehead...

I quoted it for your own benefit, for clarity to explain what I was talking about. Why the fuck would I retype it? Not my fault it's taking multiple attempts to explain to you your own error in logic. Yes you literally told me why you were calling me an asshole. And what you said didn't...

One of my favorite solutions to the Fermi paradox is just the good old "someone had to be the first lifeforms to form / first life forms to (send radio signals) to space." Yeah the universe is ancient, but it's also filled with radiation. How common is SURFACE life going to actually be versus...

Jesus talked all kinds of shit and was very sarcastic. Get back, Satan! This is a synagogue of Satan! You are children of your father, the devil! Etc. As being the most obvious ones. But he definitely spoke sarcastically in many places in the Gospels.

You definitely called me an asshole for not caring about the things you guys care about re: relative forehead sizes of young girls on television. All I was fucking saying. Not sure how anyone could read that and think that my summation using fewer words wasn't still accurate. If you made more...

The Call of Matthew; Eating with Sinners As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth. “Follow me,” he said to him. So he got up and followed him. As Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with Jesus and his...

Explains a lot.

Preferring pretty faces isn't the same as being repulsed and bitching for pages about non pretty faces. You seem alright.

Thing is that assholes like you are actually just a vocal minority here. Lots of people that hang out but mostly lurk, largely because of the fact that speaking up in disagreement with the status quo often just gets you dogpiled on here. There's all sorts of people earlier in this thread that...

It's what you claimed you called me an asshole for, sorry, edited my sentence but forgot to include context. You definitely were calling me an asshole for not caring that the actress has a large forehead. You just didn't like that I put it in as few words.

Pretty sure that I'm one of the youngest people on this board at 36 years old tho so I mean. The older you get the fewer excuses you have for shit like that.

I'm*

When I was young and shallow I did but at some point I matured to where I'm able to enjoy television regardless of the physical appearances of the actors. I personally feel I'm better off for it but hey you guys do you.

I literally give zero fucks about what someone looks like unless I'm gonna bang them. Being repulsed by something small like a big forehead or a wart is shallow as fuck. And especially creepy when talking about 14 year old girl characters. Sorry not sorry.

...

What time did you start drinking today? Those aren't even real sentences.

Are you really claiming you didn't try to call me an asshole in that way, while simultaneously sperging out on me as if I'm the one that can't actually follow an entire conversation? Lmfao You must be trolling this can't be real life rofl

You literally did call me an asshole. I used the word myself because I was echoing your words... Yes all the posts are still there, go look.

I was calling you a pedo. The thing you were just trying to call me out on, tho, was thinking I contradicted myself by formerly saying I personally cared about her forehead and then later saying I didn't. You misunderstood what I said, clearly, or you're grasping at straws. Or both. I give...

I don't personally care about her forehead. But I think it's weird that you do care about her forehead. Your reading comprehension needs work (still), because that was clearly all I was saying. How the fuck could you get anything other than that out of what I've been saying unless you were...