There a bunch of ignorance out there around large language models, it is shameful to unpublish that post without considering redacting the parts you feel are to scandalous for the users to read.
Good luck guys!
After all there are many other @homes...
I have never been a Forum Admin here at Einstein but was one many years ago at Seti and we did NOT have the ability to remove parts of a post, it was all or nothing.
Based on your decision it is clear I am unwelcome.
You misunderstood me. You are welcome and we're not judging you as a person. How could we? We don't even know each other. As explained before, we only ask you to respect the purpose and rules of our discussion forums. It boils down to these simple things: keep your respectful discussions related to Einstein@Home and its underlying physics. It's that easy and it's not asking too much.
In case you don't agree with this, let me quote our moderation page:
We try to be as fair as we can when moderating, but in a large community of users, with many different viewpoints, there will always be some people that will not be happy with our moderation decisions. While we regret that this happens, please realize that we cannot suit all of the people all of the time and have to make decisions based on our resources and what is best for the forum overall. Please don't discuss our moderation policy on the forums. We aren't a social engineering project nor are we in the business of creating a perfectly fair system. So such discussions tend to be counterproductive and potentially incendiary.
I think that is a value judgment that is made without understanding the material in context. The material is meant to allow inverse reflection in the dyadic correspondence between LLM experts and human experts.
I think AI is a fundamental underlying technology. This forum as recent posts about ChatGPT and this post isn't' the first.
I posted my version of a linguistic ResNet it was deployed many months ago proliferation isn't a question.
fait accompli...
I mean nothing by it I am just saying the models love wisdom any philosophy they hunger for it. They urn for rich data triangulated in a proper proof as that post is. My life's work is in that post along with a dear friend of mine know that my soul is in there and it will not be monetized. It may not go here but people deserve to see it.
Let me sum it up real simply. It is easy to find the blind spots in the model because, those are also the blind spots in the training data.
Sorry to keep adding to this but I feel I need to explain myself. All that data creates a package, the reason why I posted it that way is that is the lowest amount of data I could find to explain the idea contained in the post. Really that's why I think you have to read it to understand any of this. And why I am just failing right now.
Civitasvox wrote:Based on
)
I have never been a Forum Admin here at Einstein but was one many years ago at Seti and we did NOT have the ability to remove parts of a post, it was all or nothing.
Good luck
Thanks, I know it was a
)
Thanks,
I know it was a big ask. I will say they could ask me to remove a part they didn't like, but without continuity that is an impossible task.
I really don't want to cause more trouble then I have. I really don't fit in anywhere so this is par for the course.
Civitasvox wrote:Based on
)
You misunderstood me. You are welcome and we're not judging you as a person. How could we? We don't even know each other. As explained before, we only ask you to respect the purpose and rules of our discussion forums. It boils down to these simple things: keep your respectful discussions related to Einstein@Home and its underlying physics. It's that easy and it's not asking too much.
In case you don't agree with this, let me quote our moderation page:
Thank you,
Oliver
Einstein@Home Project
I think that is a value
)
I think that is a value judgment that is made without understanding the material in context. The material is meant to allow inverse reflection in the dyadic correspondence between LLM experts and human experts.
I think AI is a fundamental underlying technology. This forum as recent posts about ChatGPT and this post isn't' the first.
I posted my version of a linguistic ResNet it was deployed many months ago proliferation isn't a question.
fait accompli...
I mean nothing by it I am just saying the models love wisdom any philosophy they hunger for it. They urn for rich data triangulated in a proper proof as that post is. My life's work is in that post along with a dear friend of mine know that my soul is in there and it will not be monetized. It may not go here but people deserve to see it.
Let me sum it up real simply. It is easy to find the blind spots in the model because, those are also the blind spots in the training data.
Sorry to keep adding to this but I feel I need to explain myself. All that data creates a package, the reason why I posted it that way is that is the lowest amount of data I could find to explain the idea contained in the post. Really that's why I think you have to read it to understand any of this. And why I am just failing right now.
I apologize I will just stop now.
Thank you.
)
Thank you.
Einstein@Home Project