General_Effort

Cool cool. How long will that stay true?

It doesn't explain tokenizers well (or at all). There are better videos on the subject.

Anyway. Suppose you wanted to spell giraffe with the English alphabet in any arbitrary, phonetic way. You could also spell, for example; "jeeruff", or "djirough". You could count how many phonetically correct ways there are to spell "giraffe".

Tokenizers break a text into sequences of characters (even individual characters), called tokens. Different tokenizers use different tokens. The one they use here has "gira" as a token, but also "g", "i", "r", and "a". So you could tokenize the same text in different ways. They have a slide where they show the possibilities.

I can see how the confusion arises. People here have been saying that LLMs are useless. Now you read about Mythos finding these exploits. But Mythos is not any better than the previous LLMs. Which means that it is useless. So any suggestion to the contrary can only be a marketing tactic. QED

Looks like we're no longer doing the bit about the hallucination machine being useless.

No. That's not what these words mean.

Look... Doesn't that feel kind of like self-pitying rot to anyone here? Why are we dependent on US technology? Because we are so ethical and pure...

Here's the truth.

In the late 90s, a German student created a search engine in Germany. It was a little thing. It only scraped a few hundred media outlets. You signed up, defined some keywords, and when an article matching those keywords was published, you received a notification.

He immediately was sued and forced to shut down under copyright law. Google could operate in the US under Fair Use.

Eventually, years later search engines were legalized in Germany (and the EU). But by then the Internet was dominated by US companies. It makes no sense to spend billions to build a European Google that does exactly what Google already does.

The reason that there is no European Google is that we insist that information must be owned. No data processing without the explicit consent of the owner. Which means, we insist that some intellectual property owners should be allowed to extract rent from us all.

You're so out-of-touch if you believe that the EU is against this.

It's especially weird coming from an apparent German. You know all that rhetoric about how the internet is no "wild west". That means locking everything down. Only the properly licensed professionals are allowed to do stuff with properly regulated tools. That's how it goes in Germany.

This stuff is what Google is supposed to do.

There's no irony there. It's what Elsevier does. They have no qualms about looting research budgets and sabotaging science in the process. They won't make an exception for open source AI.

Meta must win this. Everything else would be a disaster.

I did ask for more info about how AI is "destroying society".

Interesting how Americans are the most concerned. I wonder what might explain that. In the US, white people are the most worried (IIRC).

Which raises 2 questions: Were they anti-slop because they saw the threat to their jobs? Or did they lose their jobs because they wouldn't match the output of AI users?

I agree. Now note how far away from AI this is.

Those issues are something that societies and democratically elected representatives should work out; not some billionaires. The problem seems to be that some people with a good thing going don't want something that benefits them personally. They prefer no change over something that benefits everyone (but them relatively less).

That's 1 company, not AI as a whole, and its services are obviously much in demand by our democratically elected leaders.

I simply don't know what you mean at all.

it is actively trying to destroy society,

How so?

taking more power from the masses.

That's promoted by AI haters. The copyright people want to privatize human knowledge and charge rent for it. The latest lawsuit against Meta even includes Elsevier, ffs.

Then there's all the busy-bodies who want everything surveilled "for the children". Cause people might be chatting about self-harm, or generate nudes, or some other "harmful" content.

a random person on thier computer could put something together to change the world.

Yes. For example the random people who founded these AI start-ups.

Right now, the world of technology is uniquely malleable in a way it has not been since the dotcom crash. That's what motivates most of the hate. It's people who feel that they will lose out; eg the news media that already suffers from the rise of the internet.

I don't actually know what you mean.

For many people, especially politicians, it was always about this. It's a rejection of the unregulated "wild west" internet, built on US ideals of free speech.

Germany used to have a fairly successful Facebook clone. Once it was a bit successful, it was forced to split up. Minors had to get their own separate service, where they could not be contacted by adults. It wasn't a hit. The "American technological hegemony" is the result of deliberate policy choices such as that.

Demanding age verification of websites and services is Europe sticking to its guns; European values.