Why should Amazon be liable for stuff sold by third parties?

Even when proven dangerous products are reported to Amazon they continue to sell it.

Louis Rossman talks about it a lot.

https://youtu.be/eS698R-bxuc

My god you’re thick.

What you just did is called “digging a deeper hole”.

Like I said, I’ve worked in the industry for over a decade. What I said isn’t even up for debate. If you had a shred of understanding you know how astoundingly wrong what you said is. In fact, if you had a shred of understanding you just flat out wouldn’t have said it.

Amazon is not a source.

Someone trying to sell their LLM to the general public, and therefore simplifying the language to convey a concept is not a source.

Straight up genetic fallacy.

Wikipedia is not a source.

You’re right. It’s not a “source”. It’s a source aggregator. You know that list of little tiny text at the bottom of each page? Those are “references” from credible sources that are cited.

I’ll give you an example. The quote from Wikipedia I provided has a little “1” and a little “2” right at the end of the sentence. If you click on them it’ll take you to the cited source.

The little “1” will bring you to the following page:

https://news.mit.edu/2017/explained-neural-networks-deep-learning-0414

Here are some excerpts:

Modeled loosely on the human brain, a neural net consists of thousands or even millions of simple processing nodes that are densely interconnected.

particular network layouts or rules for adjusting weights and thresholds have reproduced observed features of human neuroanatomy and cognition, an indication that they capture something about how the brain processes information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/artificial-neural-network

It resembles the human brain in two respects: The knowledge is acquired by the network through a learning process, and interneuron connection strengths known as synaptic weights are used to store the knowledge.

They imitate somewhat the learning process of a human brain because they learn the relationship between the input parameters and the controlled and uncontrolled variables by studying previously recorded data.

ANN is a computational model that is based on a machine learning technique. It works like a human brain neuron system.

Directly linked to in the Science Direct page from Wikipedia:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444528551500118

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational models that attempt to emulate the architecture and function of the human brain (Russell and Norvig, 1995).

So does not function like a brain does.

Now I know you’re either 14 or just not very smart. You directly quoted the source with This prevents LLMs from performing deliber- ate planning akin to human brains,

It’s literally in the sentence, it said “deliberate planning akin to human brains”. It doesn’t say anywhere in that sentence that neural networks aren’t modelled after brains and it doesn’t say anything about reasoning (the two things you keep refuting).

Aaand I’m going to stop checking your sources now

Convenient for your “argument”.

Read your sources and make sure they say what you think they do

I have. You just can’t read, have reading comprehension issues, or simply can’t understand them.

If you present me with another pile of links and the first one is invalid I won’t bother looking at the 2nd.

I don’t care if you do. Anyone else who reads these comments will see you’re out of your depth.

Citation needed.

Certainly!

In machine learning, a neural network (also artificial neural network or neural net, abbreviated ANN or NN) is a model inspired by the structure and function of biological neural networks in animal brains

Source

A neural network is a method in artificial intelligence that teaches computers to process data in a way that is inspired by the human brain.

Source

A neural network is a machine learning program, or model, that makes decisions in a manner similar to the human brain

Source

*A neural network, or artificial neural network, is a type of computing architecture that is based on a model of how a human brain functions *

Source

Would you like some more citations?

Thinking LLMs are capable of reasoning is the digital equivalent of putting eyes on a pencil then feeling bad when it gets broken in half.

In this paper, we present Reasoning via Planning (RAP), a novel LLM reasoning framework that equips LLMs with an ability to reason akin to human-like strategic planning

Source - Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model

Motivated by the observation that adding more concise CoT examples in the prompt can improve LLM reasoning performance

Source - Microsoft Research

LegalBench - a tool to evaluate the reasoning performance of an LLM in the legal domain.

A paper on benchmarking an LLMs temporal reasoning.

Shall I provide some more?

That’s a bad analogy, because the calculator wasn’t trained using an artificial neural network literally designed by studying biological brains (aka biological neutral networks).

And “understand” doesn’t equate to consciousness or sapience. For example, it is entirely and factually correct to state that an LLM is capable of reasoning. That’s not even up for debate. The accuracy of an LLM’s reasoning capability is one of the fundamental benchmarks used for evaluating its quality.

But that doesn’t mean it’s “thinking” in the way most people consider.

Edit: anyone up voting this CileTheSane clown is in the same boat of not comprehending how LLMs work.

Here you go

https://youtu.be/gQddtTdmG_8

Coincidentally, this is exactly how llms work

Everyone who says this doesn’t actually understand how LLMs work.

Multivector word embeddings create emergent relationships that’s new knowledge that doesn’t exist in the training dataset.

Computerphile did a good video on this well before the LLM craze.

Both sentences are true. And based on vocabulary of both, the model can output the following sentences:

1. Cats have feathers.
2. Birds have fur

This is not how the models are trained or work.

Both are false but the model doesn’t “know” it. All that it knows is that “have” is allowed to go after both “cats” and “birds”, and that both “feathers” and “fur” are allowed to go after “have”.

Demonstrably false. This isn’t how LLMs are trained or built.

Just considering the contextual relationships between word embeddings that are created during training is evidence enough. Those relationships from the multi-vector fields are an emergent property that doesn’t exist in the dataset.

If you want a better understanding of what I just said, take a look at this Computerphile video from four years ago. And this came out before the LLM hype and before ChatGPT 3, which was the big leap in LLMs.

I got little to no patience towards people who distort what others say,

My original reply was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I forgot about Poe’s law. I’m not a layman, for the record. I’ve worked with AI for over a decade

Not wasting my time further with you.

Ditto. Have a nice day.

I know you are, but the argument that an LLM doesn’t understand context is incorrect. It’s not human level understanding, but it’s been demonstrated that they do have a level of understanding.

And to be clear, I’m not talking about consciousness or sapience.

The issue with your assertion is that people don’t actually work a similar way. Have you ever met someone who was clearly taught "garbage’?

Sure, for a personal PC I would not necessarily want a BSOD, I’d prefer if it just booted and alerted the user. But for enterprise servers? Best not.

You have that backwards. I work as a dev and system admin for a medium sized company. You absolutely do not want any server to ever not boot. You absolutely want to know immediately that there’s an issue that needs to be addressed ASAP, but a loss of service generally means loss of revenue and, even worse, a loss of reputation. If you server is briefly at a lower protection level that’s not an issue unless you’re actively being targeted and attacked. But if that’s the case then getting notified of an issue can get some people to deal with it immediately.

But they don’t need to do that track where you go and what you do. They’re already doing that with smartphones. That was my point.

And for the record, they don’t need 3D cameras for anything. A photo off of Facebook is enough. I worked in that field and developed that kind of software.

For hundreds of years women couldn’t vote and minorities were categorically segregated.

That’s a strawman analogy. We’re not talking about privacy as a whole. The discussion here is about the supposed right to privacy at, what amounts to, a government controlled entrance point into the country. You have to identify yourself no matter which technology is being used. There’s no anonymity at an airport (from the government). Whether it’s technology or a piece of paper, you are legally required to identify yourself.

I keep saying this over and over, but if you want to talk about digital privacy, focus your energy on smartphones and the internet. The impact for privacy violation and the impact for regaining privacy rights is the most effective there.

Only a subset of any population has any interaction with an airport and the privacy implications there are next to nothing (because there is no right to anonymity there).

The reality is that the ship for that kind of privacy has shipped a long time ago. Like a hundred years ago. The reality is that the authorities know details about every single person that passes through an airport. You can’t get in or out without a passport/identification.

There is virtually no expectation to privacy at an airport. It’s a public place that is heavily monitored for good reason. And that fact isn’t hidden in the slightest. You are legally required to freely and honestly identify yourself to the authorities.

If this was at your local bus stop, then you’d have a point. But not at airports.

Also, the serious discussion about privacy should have started with the introduction of the smartphone. That’s when the conversation would have mattered and made a difference. But that ship has sailed.

Stupid privacy people. What’s the worst that could happen? Surveillance companies that have already scoured the internet for photos of people to build a giant database of people?

It’s also not like they could ever use the hundreds of other cameras all over the airports. What would they do with all that data anyways?

that way ypu would never have errors on your code.

🤔

That’s a bad analogy. CrowdStrike’s driver encountering an error isn’t the same as not having disk IO or a memory corruption. If CrowdStrike’s driver didn’t load at all wasn’t installed the system could still boot.

It should absolutely be expected that if the CrowdStrike driver itself encounters an error, there should be a process that allows the system to gracefully recover. The issue is that CrowdStrike likely thought of their code as not being able to crash as they likely only ever tested with good configs, and thus never considered a graceful failure of their driver.

The following:

• An internal backup of previous configs
• Encrypted copies
• Massive warnings in the system that current loaded config has failed integrity check

There’s a load of other checks that could be employed. This is literally no different than securing the OS itself.

This is essentially a solved problem, but even then it’s impossible to make any system 100% secure. As the person you replied to said: “this is poor code”

Edit: just to add, failure for the system to boot should NEVER be the desired outcome. Especially when the party implementing that is a 3rd party service. The people who setup these servers are expecting them to operate for things to work. Nothing is gained from a non-booting critical system and literally EVERYTHING to lose. If it’s critical then it must be operational.

If there’s an error, use last known good config. So many systems do this.

You know there’s a whole other scenario where the system can simply boot the last known good config.