I can’t repro, it works for me sorry

I didn’t mean my opportunity cost from the toilet.

I did, that’s literally what I’ve been talking about this whole time. I’m asking you to stop wasting yours and my time.

Neither did chatgpt, the post is fake. See the other comments, people have verified

I see, thanks for clarifying. If you’re arguing that PRNG is not random, then you’re likely confusing non-technical readers. Additionally, it is an implementation detail whether it’s pseudorandom or actually random since /dev/random takes in actual random signals like network packets.

If it used a seeded PRNG it’s repeatable, but repeatability does not imply predictability which is what a non-technical reader might assume. Remember, most people on here are non-technical.

re: the kv cache thing, I don’t think that’s correct but I don’t have the energy to prove it sorry. shared kv cache sounds like a security nightmare but ymmv

Honest question, you used the word opportunity cost, but do you not understand what that is? With an opportunity cost, you compare two possible actions that you can take. It doesn’t make sense to compare your action (supporting those that propagate misinformation) to the actions of an entire economy (investing in ai infrastructure), because the actor is not the same in both.

With an opportunity cost, you can only compare the actions that you can take, and you alone. I listed a few comparable actions in my previous comment: research climate change, research the climate effects of ai, post about factory farms, read up on solar, invite others to donate money to clean water causes. These can all be done on the toilet. Any of these is a better use of your time than joining a mob of people against a cause you don’t even fully understand.

Almost all clients do some random sampling after softmax using temperature. I’m confused why someone who knows about kv caching would not know about temperature. Also shared kv cache while plausible is not standard in open source as of a year or so ago, so i’m curious what you are basing this off of. Did I miss a research paper?

This doesn’t seem real, have any of you actually tried this?

And you as a commenter have an opportunity cost too. You could be spending your time raising money for PETA or Oxfam, or researching climate change, or commenting about the effects of factory farms, but instead you’re just griping about the current popular thing to gripe about.

I donate 100% of my salary (I’m retired but still work) to fighting income inequality, climate change, animal abuse, and transphobia. It’s so frustrating to see people waste their time hating on things they don’t even understand just to fit in. Maybe this doesn’t describe everyone commenting, but if it does maybe they should get off their high horse. Sometimes the best thing a person can do for the world is shut up and give space for an actual expert to talk.

Please people, you need to stop spreading this misinformation.

AI is not killing the environment. If you track the sources of these claims, you will find that they first were spread by McKinsey and Bloomberg, who have a vested interest in publicly traded oil companies and other polluting corporations. They love to spread this misinformation because it distracts from the REAL environmental harms being caused by fossil fuels, meat farming, and concrete production. See drawdown.org for the specific numbers.

We need to stay focused on climate change and not get distracted. Our efforts should be focused on stopping new coal plants and factory farms. Datacenters, and especially the one in indianapolis which wouldn’t even have used water for cooling, have minimal environmental impact compared to trump’s coal, oil, and farming policies which will kill tens of millions in the long run and have already sparked wars.

We can fix climate change. We were so close to replacing fossil fuels that oil companies got scared; we can’t afford to give up at the last mile.

Pre-transition: “bro”, “dawg”, “bruh”, “bruu”, “broseph”, “dude” from my friends, endearingly and ironically (I assume) since I’ve always been effeminate. From strangers mostly just “hey! you!” Some people said “brother” unironically and 🤮 unfriended instantly

Currently: when I’m alone I get “buddy” and “sir”, which is weird because basically nobody referred to me as sir pre-transition. But besides that, there’s a lot less direct references to my gender. When I’m with other girls it’s always “ladies” at least.

I hope to someday pass, sounds nice

Yup, it takes some programming but I find it quite handy for avoiding botnets and tankies.

Wow thanks for the threat man that’s fun to wake up to. I guess I must have really upset the tankie mothership to have gotten so many threats today. I do not support fascists or authoritarians of ANY kind, wild to see that you only dislike them when it’s not daddy russia.

Like seriously, you in particular confuse me. What are you doing on the anarchist instance if you’re going to go out of your way to threaten people for calling out state-controlled media? Such a hypocrite.

Did not say that. I said what I said. I said this is from RT which is a known outlet for Russian propaganda. Why are you so intent on sealioning for a known propaganda wing for the Russian government? Actually, never mind, don’t answer, I don’t care. I’m not interested in debating with authoritarians, fascists, and tankies. You all can respectfully go lick grass.

Don’t try to drag me into being trampled by harassers by making McCarthyist claims about what I believe with zero evidence. You are the worst type of person. Blocked.

The video literally has a watermark on it that says russia in big letters in a twitter handle. You clearly did not watch the video or are lying.

Wild to see 280 people upvoting content from RT, which is literally a Russian propaganda outlet. But thanks for the list of 280 people whose votes I can safely ignore, I guess.

Ah if only I had self control

No I mean it’s literally AI generated. I am super confident. I work on these models on a daily basis so I know it when I see it. Sorry that doesn’t fit into your preconceived worldview.

You write with too much confidence, I think. I work on these models professionally so I don’t know what to tell you besides your surface level understanding of LLMs seems wrong. 🤷‍♀️

Models do use emdashes disproportionately often, along with shorter sentences than the average human, because they are trained with RLHF where humans rate the model outputs based on their preferences. This is different than copying human behavior as you suggested they do. With RLHF (and later more efficient methods), humans tended to rate models that used emdashes and that had shorter, matter of fact sentences higher because it projected more confidence. In fact, models that were confidently wrong were more likely to be rated higher than models that were unconfidently correct.

Sources cited:

• https://surgehq.ai/blog/lmarena-is-a-plague-on-ai
• https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/49107/why-do-ai-language-models-overuse-em-dashes-compared-to-human-writers
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning_from_human_feedback

Respectfully, if you do the stereotypical armchair expert thing and double down, I will block you. I don’t have the patience to deal with people incorrectly mansplaining my own field to me. I just want to spread knowledge.

AI detectors don’t work on the latest generation, they’re all trained on older open source models. You can usually tell AI generated stuff by the em dashes, the tone, and the contrast-driven sentence structure.

E.g. the most AI generated sentence is “That’s not being rude—that’s self-care .”

This one looks like Grok. It has a tendency to generate short sentences and pithy one liners like “Let that sink in.”