Probably not. I mean the whole movie was a psudo-satire about the war on terror. But there were lots of internal contradictions that made the second half age terribly. The main message of the second half was that Iraq definitely does have WMDs and America might be annoying and brash and dumb but someone has to invade the middle east to fight evil!

A sequel would either have to admit that there were no WMDs and the war on terror was open colonialism, or ignore the entire message of the first movie and pretend it never happened, or double down on saying actually it’s cool for the US to invade other countries.

What the fuck are you talking about?

To the point of invention

Boo

Literally Jorjor Well

Maybe I misunderstood the OP? Idk

People sometimes act like the models can only reproduce their training data, which is what I’m saying is wrong. They do generalise.

During training the models are trained to predict the next word, but after training the network is always effectively interpolating between the training examples it has memorised. But this interpolation doesn’t happen in text space but in a very high dimensional abstract semantic representation space, a ‘concept space’.

Now imagine that you have memorised two paragraphs that occupy two points in concept space. And then you interpolate between them. This gives you a new point, potentially unseen during training, a new concept, that is in some ways analogous to the two paragraphs you memorised, but still fundamentally different, and potentially novel.

Not an ELI5, sorry. I’m an AI PhD, and I want to push back against the premises a lil bit.

Why do you assume they don’t know? Like what do you mean by “know”? Are you taking about conscious subjective experience? or consistency of output? or an internal world model?

There’s lots of evidence to indicate they are not conscious, although they can exhibit theory of mind. Eg: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.08708.pdf

For consistency of output and internal world models, however, their is mounting evidence to suggest convergence on a shared representation of reality. Eg this paper published 2 days ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07987

The idea that these models are just stochastic parrots that only probabilisticly repeat their training data isn’t correct, although it is often repeated online for some reason.

A little evidence that comes to my mind is this paper showing models can understand rare English grammatical structures even if those structures are deliberately withheld during training: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19827

“The new book has, for lack of a better term, completely screwed over my fanfiction”

“These books live and die by their fanfiction. For the authors not to coordinate with the fanfic writers is a disgrace”

What are hoops that you chase with a stick doing to children? Demands grow to restrict kids access to hoops that you chase with a stick

“wage growth … could lead to inflationary pressures becoming entrenched”

Never mind the report from the bank of England saying that the vast majority of the current inflation is due to increased corporate profits (price gouging bastards). No, if the struggling poor ask for their wages to keep up with prices then “inflationary pressures become entrenched”.

Actually evil. These people have nothing but contempt for you. “You will suffer, and you will say thank you, or we will raise your rent again”.

This whole article is just saying “some people don’t like act three. What do you think? Leave a comment bellow”.

So low effort

This post is a disaster.

It says “An experiment in 2020s incentivizing the workplace as a dot-com-era adult playground where work also” three times.

I get that it’s embedded or whatever, but reading this post was like having a stroke.

Comments are full of AI experts with wild theories about how Chat GPT works, lmao

If only we had listened to you