Not even that. It was placeholder textures, only the “newspaper clippings” of which was forgotten to be removed from the final game and was fixed in an update shortly after launch.

None of it was ever intended to be used in the final product and was just there as lorum ipsum equivalent shit.

Took a lot of scrolling to find an intelligent comment on the article about how outputting words isn’t necessarily intelligence.

Appreciate you doing the good work I’m too exhausted with Lemmy to do.

(And for those that want more research in line with what the user above is talking about, I strongly encourage checking out the Othello-GPT line of research and replication, starting with this write-up from the original study authors here.)

He’s been wrong about it so far and really derailed Meta’s efforts.

This is almost certainly a “you can resign or we are going to fire you” kind of situation. There’s no way with the setbacks and how badly he’s been wrong on transformers over the past 2 years that he is not finally being pushed out.

I tend to see a lot of discussion taking place on here that’s pretty out of touch with the present state of things, echoing earlier beliefs about LLM limitations like “they only predict the next token” and other things that have already been falsified.

This most recent research from Anthropic confirms a lot of things that have been shifting in the most recent generation of models in ways that many here might find unexpected, especially given the popular assumptions.

Specifically interesting are the emergent capabilities of being self-aware of injected control vectors or being able to silently think of a concept so it triggers the appropriate feature vectors even though it isn’t actually ending up in the tokens.

Have your neurologists agreed with your estimate of impending doom, or is this a conclusion you have come to on your own?

Disturbance in sleep breathing such as you are describing could be as simple as sleep apnea which is fixable.

In your previous post it seemed like the way you discussed your relationship with neurology was that the institution failed you and that you had come to your own conclusions regarding your issues being the brain stem, and mentioning new symptoms of breathing issues as being why you thought your time was limited but not indicating this was feedback you were getting from your doctors.

My concern is that the language you are using in describing your situation has progressed over the past month to the point you are now describing your fears about further progression as a top concern in combination with your fatalism around the ultimate outcome of what you have going on, even desiring a way to leave a lasting mark in only one day from now, which seems very alarming in that you might try to take matters into your own hands.

That may end up killing you quite unnecessarily when your issues, particularly the latest symptom, may not be as intractable as you think.

You’d mentioned before that the tests performed by the neurologists all came back as normal. This disconnect between symptoms and tests isn’t uncommon, and you might want to look into finding a neurologist that specializes in functional disorders - if that’s what is going on it can be treatable but the longer it goes on without treatment the more difficult it is to treat.

In any case, you absolutely should not be self-determining prognosis without it coming from a medical professional, and should never take matters into your own hands based on a self-determined prognosis. If your doctors have only given you a short time to live, so be it - but I get a strong sense given the progression of what you’ve said in your posts to date that this isn’t the case and you may be in life-threatening danger from your brain, but not in the way you think.

TL;DR: Do your neurologists agree that your recent breathing issues mean you are likely to die soon?

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen.

Anyone who thinks this is going to work doesn’t understand the concept of signal to noise.

Let’s say you are an artist who draws cats. And you are super worried big tech is going to be able to use your images to teach AI what a cat looks like. So you instead use this to pixel mangle it to bias towards looking like a lizard.

Over there is another artist who also draws cats and is worried about AI. So they use this tool to make cats bias towards looking like horses.

All that bias data taken across thousands of pictures of cats ends up becoming indistinguishable from noise. There’s no more hidden bias signal.

The only way this would work is if the majority of all images in the training data of object A all had hidden bias towards object B (as were the very artificial conditions used in the paper).

This compounds by multiple axes for what you’d want to bias. If you draw fantasy cats, are you only biasing away from cats to dogs? Or are you also going to try to bias against fantasy to pointillism? You can always bias towards pointillism dogs, but now your poisoning is less effective combined with a cubist cat artist biasing towards anime dogs.

As you dilute the bias data by trying to cover multiple aspects that can be learned from your images by AI, you further plummet the signal into noise such that even if there was collective agreement on how to bias each individual axis, it’d be effectively worthless in a large and diverse training set.

This is dumb.

What’s the funniest legitimate non-joke standardization detail you’ve come across?