Hm. I suppose it's worth a shot. If we prompt with "All energy in the universe is expressed in motion. All motion is expressed in waves. All waves are curved. So where do the straight lines come from to make the Platonic solids?" Then it's possible the LLM would complete that with "There are no straight lines. So when I took the flower of life and opened it properly, I found all new wave conjugations that expose the in-between spaces. It's the thing that holds us all together." But I sincerely doubt it.
But maybe by "have to have", you mean that an LLM *could* be trained (and/or structured) to bias toward rare expressions/concepts in its training set instead of more common ones. On 5/30/24 09:01, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I'm not going to watch Joe Rogan, 😊 but I think LLMs don't have to have this homogenous mean problem. They capture a distribution, so it is a question of the inference procedure to sample from it. What is the (beam) search algorithm, how deep does it go, and what is the sampling temperature. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FRIAM] words Terrence Howard | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union https://youtu.be/ca1vIYmGyYA?si=vhbtA5WUX1CV8LZH Joe Rogan Experience #2152 - Terrence Howard https://youtu.be/g197xdRZsW0?si=kFTa7lQJI1lKA6R1 I just can't help but wonder how many people, while listening to Howard talk, realize they're interacting with a sick individual (who deserves compassion but does not deserve gullibility). Or how many people are (like Rogan seems to have been) ... uh ... hypnotized by Howard's well-crafted word salad. In this LLM era, where many people, including some on this list, are enthralled by random bullshit, it seems like a reasonable thing to wonder about. Luckily, the clear cognitive power Howard exhibits puts him in some kind of rare quantile. So our LLMs, being driven mostly to a homogenous mean, their random bullshit will, by definition, match those of us within 1 or a few sigma and suppress the weirdest among us. Being a fan of steel-manning, I'm having a bit of a crisis. The paradox of tolerance tells me that we absolutely must call bullshit at some point, even if it's not ruthless. Those Oxford Union attendees danced around egging him on and calling him out. Is this what the kids call "cringe"? Do we just cringe and tolerate it? Or, like Rogan, pretend to credibility relying on his weirdness to be so weird that it'll disappear into the tails? Or should we be deplatforming the bullshit?
-- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
