I think to some extent it’s a matter of scale, though. If I advertise something as a calculator capable of doing all math, and it can only do one problem, it is so drastically far away from its intended purpose that the meaning kinda breaks down. I don’t think it would be wrong to say “it malfunctions in 99.999999% of use cases” but it would be easier to say that it just doesn’t work.

Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, if we did the disgusting work of precomputing all 2 number math problems for integers from -1,000,000 to 1,000,000 and I think you could say you had a (really shitty and slow) calculator, which “malfunctions” for numbers outside that range if you don’t specify the limitation ahead of time. Not crazy different from software which has issues with max_int or small buffers.

If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction (and we wouldn’t be having this conversation). If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software. 99.999% of the time, it’d be better to say that it just doesn’t work. I don’t think there is, or even needs to be, some unified understanding of where the line is between them.

Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.

We’re talking about the meaning of “malfunction” here, we don’t need to overthink it and construct a rigorous proof or anything. The creator of the thing can decide what the thing they’re creating is supposed to do. You can say

hey, it did X, was that supposed to happen?

no, it was not supposed to do that, that’s a malfunction.

We don’t need to go to

Actually you never sufficiently defined its function to cover all cases in an objective manner, so ACTUALLY it’s not a malfunction!

Whatever, it still wasn’t supposed to do that

The purpose of an LLM, at a fundamental level, is to approximate text it was trained on.

I’d argue that’s what an LLM is, not its purpose. Continuing the car analogy, that’s like saying a car’s purpose is to burn gasoline to spin its wheels. That’s what a car does, the purpose of my car is to get me from place to place. The purpose of my friend’s car is to look cool and go fast. The purpose of my uncle’s car is to carry lumber.

I think we more or less agree on the fundamentals and it’s just differences between whether they are referring to a malfunction in the system they are trying to create, in which an LLM is a key tool/component, or a malfunction in the LLM itself. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that it did a thing they didn’t want it to do, and that an LLM by itself may not be the correct tool for the job.

Where I don’t think your argument fits is that it could be applied to things LLMs can currently do. If I have an insufficiently trained model which produces a word salad to every prompt, one could say “that’s not a malfunction, it’s still applying weights.”

The malfunction is in having a system that produces useful results. An LLM is just the means for achieving that result, and you could argue it’s the wrong tool for the job and that’s fine. If I put gasoline in my diesel car and the engine dies, I can still say the car is malfunctioning. It’s my fault, and the engine wasn’t ever supposed to have gas in it, but the car is now “failing to function in a normal or satisfactory manner,” the definition of malfunction.

It implies that, under the hood, the LLM is “malfunctioning”. It is not - it’s doing what it is supposed to do, to chain tokens through weighted probabilities.

I don’t really agree with that argument. By that logic, there’s really no such thing as a software bug, since the software is always doing what it’s supposed to be doing: giving predefined instructions to a processor that performs some action. It’s “supposed to” provide a useful response to prompts, anything other than is it not what it should be and could be fairly called a malfunction.

Thank you for actual POV

To be clear, your stance is it’s such a small step in the right direction, you’d prefer no step at all? Keep it cis-only or invest time/money in extra character models?

Haven’t digital price tags been used for decades? I’m sure these will be more high tech, but I remember ones like this at least 20 years ago

I think that’s been a fair description of the AAS space for a long time, which is fine. If you want innovation, go indie, if you want big budget, go AAA

Yeah, I just did a quick test in Python to do a tcp connection to “0.0.0.0” and it made a loopback connection, instead of returning an error as I would have expected.

The Brewster’s Millions genie

Minor aside, I really dislike when things use life expectancy for things like this instead of adult life expectancy. Child mortality drastically skews it so much it’s useless.

Looking completely realistic and being able to discern between real and fake are competing goals. If you can discern the difference, then it does not look completely realistic.

I think what they’re alluding to is generative adversarial networks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network where creating a better discriminator that can detect a good image from bad is how you get a better image.

It is, and it does provide improved performance at the expense of complexity. Both India and the US Air Force actually used clusters of PS3s to create supercomputers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(processor) has some more details as well

Why would you suddenly add in the “hundred” when you didn’t do it for any previous ones?

Except when you do https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/apostrophes

Apostrophe when making a number plural is not uncommon.

Ah, that makes sense, like summa cum laude.

sometimes it’s a matter of means & availability, sometimes it’s a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it’s basically a hobby

Very little of that justifies it to me. For means & availability, this isn’t a mother stealing baby formula. Pirated content isn’t a need (though I’d make an exception for things like school books). There’s plenty of content made to be free and available, as well as libraries. And I’m completely fine with people pirating copies of paid-for content; there’s an argument to be made that that isn’t actually piracy and is personal archiving. It probably doesn’t need to be said that “hobby” is not a justification in the least, just like people who shoplift for the thrill.

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it’s like enabling an abuser, however slight, you’re contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others

To me the real crux is that you believe that not doing something immoral is the same thing as doing something moral. Me sitting here is moral because I’m not murdering someone. Yay me. I’m also not blackmailing, gaslighting, stealing, etc. etc. Me sitting here might be the most moral thing anyone has ever done.

To me the case for the absence of activity actually being moral is it requires some amount of sacrifice to continue to do the right thing. Avoiding going to Walmart to support a local business, even if you pay more and it’s further away. The difference between not wanting to see a movie and boycotting it. There’s nothing moral about not going to a movie you didn’t want to see. But I think it is moral to avoid going to a movie you wanted to because of labor practices; you made a sacrifice in support of your beliefs. If you then go and pirate said movie, it’s indistinguishable from selfish behavior.

As I’ve said in other spots, if it’s genuinely about not supporting hostile services and not about self-interest, donate however much you’re saving by pirating to a union or charity. That’s completely fair. But if not, all I see is people acting in their self interest and trying to justify it by saying that they are doing a bad thing to bad people so it’s okay (and maybe they’re doing a little bad to some good people as well, but that’s a price you’re willing to have them pay for you).

The problem is when people claim they were never going to buy an awful lot of content. If someone spends a significant amount of time playing, or consuming, pirated content, I call bullshit. They would have bought at least some of it if they weren’t getting so much stuff for free. Considering the rewards and lack of consequences, I doubt the vast majority of people pirating are being really honest with themselves about what they “would never have” paid for, and instead use it as a simple excuse for bad behavior.

And rejecting a service you don’t consider worth it isn’t moral. That’s just basic capitalism and self-interest. That’s the standard decision to not buy something, which is a decision people make literally dozens of times when they go in the store. And pirating that content anyways certainly doesn’t make it any more moral.

Which is my point. People do things which are cheap and convenient because it is in their self interest. They stop pirating for selfish reasons just as they were pirating for selfish reasons.

Which is why I can’t stand self-righteous pirates who try and convince themselves and everyone else that they aren’t actually doing it selfishly, they’re doing it for some fabricated moral good and we should be thanking them for their service, that they’re fighting corporations somehow, and pretending that they aren’t withholding money from the people who spent the time making the things they enjoy.