Would be such a shame if third-party OSS contact managers “oopsie” don’t pass thus check, wouldn’t it, Google?

I didn’t read the article

- prole(@lemmy.blahaj.zone)

Oh SHIT yes, I hadn’t even considered using this for my own purposes.

Yeah the title is absolut shit.

And a ramge

No there’s a block of updates

It doesn’t update a range, there’s a range of updates

My god. Ken is right, language is not just a communication tool. Every language you learn, an entire new universe of human experiences opens up to you. It’s amazing. You get to experience the world through an entirely new lens, talk to and become friends with people who’d have stayed strange and strangers forever.

If I could go back to highschool, I’d choose the linguistic branch (we could choose between an additional foreign language, or computer science + more physics and chemistry). And I say that as a computer scientist who loves her field!

I have a list of languages I want to learn… Once I’m “finished” with the current one (aka fluent enough to not actively study every day). Chinese is also on that list.

Ugh, I hate it. My girlfriend though watches the (German synchronized) version to fall asleep.

Bright side, she hasn’t murdered me yet!

I mean, “nobody can be this stupid” might actually have protected them in the past… We’ll never know!

Just guessing, but most likely: blah blah funds tied up due to legal reasons, something something family trust and lawyers; please send me 1k so that I can then totally send you the 35k afterward :)

Yeah, similar here. We use Pareto Security (which is perfectly fine). I’m a bit worried though that some decision maker sees this and thinks "neat, now allachines can be managed via [whatever the Microsoft interface for that is called]

My personal desktop? Hahahahahaha nope

My work laptop? Nervously shuffles this article under the rug before the C-suite finds it

“Some practical notes”

Looks inside

Three slop in a trenchcoat

What? I explicitly do not believe you can “murder” an LLM, I’m saying that due to the way the technology actually works, that if someone genuinely believes an LLM is sentient or alive, then sending a message to it mist also mean it “dies” afterwards.

LLMs are obviously neither sentient nor alive (and therefore the concept of murder doesn’t even remotely apply).

That doesn’t really change anything. Every function invocation is still completely separate. Doesn’t matter if it’s a single conversation where you always answer, or parallel conversations.

An LLM is a stateless stochastic function ran over your prompt (plus whatever system prompt) as input.

If you genuinely believe that the LLM is conscious, that means every time the function stops running (i.e. stops producing output tokens), the consciousness ends.

This is far closer to death than to, say, sleep, because prompting again doesn’t “wake” the LLM, it just runs the function again, from the top; as if a digital twin was given a transcript of the previous conversation and asked to take it from here.

(Obviously, “murder” was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and this doesn’t even remotely meet any legal definition of murder. I was mostly poking fun at people who think LLMs are alive, without thinking through the implications. Personally, I think the idea that LLMs are alive/conscious/sentient is very often linked to not understanding that LLMs are not, in fact, a constantly-running ghost in the shell, thinking about and remembering things in the background.)

Is it an LG though? The APIs I’m using are WebOS specific

If someone truly believes LLMs are sentient, then they must under no circumstances prompt them even once; that would be murder.