Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
norden.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Moin! Dies ist die Mastodon-Instanz für Nordlichter, Schnacker und alles dazwischen. Folge dem Leuchtturm.

Administered by:

Server stats:

3.6K
active users

norden.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#largelanguagemodels

5 posts3 participants0 posts today
Public
janhoglund

”Scaling has run out…; models still don’t reason reliably…; the financial bubble may be bursting; there still ain’t no GPT-5; Sam Altman can’t be trusted; an overreliance on unreliable LLMs…has indeed gotten the world into deep doodoo. … LLMs are not the way. We definitely need something better.”
—Gary Marcus
garymarcus.substack.com/p/scal
#llm #llms #largelanguagemodels

Marcus on AI · Scaling is over, the bubble may be deflating, LLMs still can’t reason, and you can’t trust SamBy Gary Marcus
Public
Jason Yip

#LargeLanguageModels Pass the #TuringTest arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674

arXiv.orgLarge Language Models Pass the Turing TestWe evaluated 4 systems (ELIZA, GPT-4o, LLaMa-3.1-405B, and GPT-4.5) in two randomised, controlled, and pre-registered Turing tests on independent populations. Participants had 5 minute conversations simultaneously with another human participant and one of these systems before judging which conversational partner they thought was human. When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant. LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time -- not significantly more or less often than the humans they were being compared to -- while baseline models (ELIZA and GPT-4o) achieved win rates significantly below chance (23% and 21% respectively). The results constitute the first empirical evidence that any artificial system passes a standard three-party Turing test. The results have implications for debates about what kind of intelligence is exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs), and the social and economic impacts these systems are likely to have.
Public
Pyrzout :vm:

Developers Wanted: OpenAI Seeks Feedback About Open Model That Will Be Revealed ‘In the Coming Months’ – Source: www.techrepublic.com ciso2ciso.com/developers-wante #rssfeedpostgeneratorecho #ArtificialIntelligence #SecurityonTechRepublic #SecurityTechRepublic #largelanguagemodels #CyberSecurityNews #International #deepseekr1 #Developers #opensource #Developer #DeepSeek #OpenAI

CISO2CISO.COM & CYBER SECURITY GROUP · Developers Wanted: OpenAI Seeks Feedback About Open Model That Will Be Revealed ‘In the Coming Months’ – Source: www.techrepublic.comSource: www.techrepublic.com - Author: Megan Crouse Topic — Artificial Intelligence P
Replied in thread
Public *
AJ Sadauskas

@skribe Conversely, the cost of printing, distribution, and storage puts up a barrier to spamming people on other continents with mass quantities of low value slop.

Just think through the logistics of a hostile Eurasian state sending a mass quantity of printed materials to Australia or North America.

Or, for that matter, a hostile North American state sending a mass quantity of printed materials to Europe or Asia.

You would either need:–

a) At least one printing press on each continent;
b) You could try shipping the magazines, but they'd be a month out of date when they arrive; or
c) You could try flying them overseas, but that would be very expensive very quickly.

That's before you worry about things like delivery drivers (or postage), and warehouses.

These are less of an issue for books than they are for newspapers or magazines.

And if a particular newspaper or magazine is known to be reliable, written by humans, researched offline, and the articles are not available online, then there's potentially value in people buying a physical copy.

#ChatGPT#LLM#LargeLanguageModel
Public
Bibliolater 📚 📜 🖋

🔴 💻 **Are chatbots reliable text annotators? Sometimes**

“_Given the unreliable performance of ChatGPT and the significant challenges it poses to Open Science, we advise caution when using ChatGPT for substantive text annotation tasks._”

Ross Deans Kristensen-McLachlan, Miceal Canavan, Marton Kárdos, Mia Jacobsen, Lene Aarøe, Are chatbots reliable text annotators? Sometimes, PNAS Nexus, Volume 4, Issue 4, April 2025, pgaf069, doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf.

#OpenAccess #OA #Article #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #LargeLanguageModels #LLMS #Chatbots #Technology #Tech #Data #Annotation #Academia #Academics @ai

Public
In the Dark

Meta Theft

Beware, all thieves and imitators of other people’s labour and talents, of laying your audacious hands upon our work.

Albrecht Dürer, 1511

I’ve remembered that quotation since it was uttered by Inspector Morse in the episode Who Killed Harry Field? Albrecht Dürer wasn’t referring to Artificial Intelligence when he said it, but it does seem pertitent to what’s going on today.

There’s an article in The Atlantic about a huge database of pirated work called LibGen that has been used by Mark Zuckerberg’s corporation Meta to train its artificial intelligence system. Instead of acquiring such materials from publishers – or, Heaven forbid, authors! – they decided simply to steal it. The piece provides a link to LibGen so you can find your own work there. I searched it yesterday and found 137 works by “Peter Coles”. Not all of them are by me, as there are other authors with the same name, but all my books are there, as well as numerous research articles, reviews and other pieces:

I suppose many think I should be flattered that my works are deemed to be of sufficiently high quality to be used to train a large language model, but I’m afraid I don’t see it that way at all. I think, at least for the books, this is simply theft. I understand that there may be a class action in the USA against Meta for this larceny, which I hope succeeds.

I think I should make a few points about copyright and authorship. I am a firm advocate of open access to the scientific literature, so I don’t think research articles should be under copyright. Meta can access them along with everyone else on the planet. It’s not really piracy if it’s free anyways. Although it would be courteous of Meta to acknowledge its sources, lack of courtesy is not the worst of Meta’s areas of misconduct.

In a similar vein, when I started writing this blog back in 2008 I did wonder about copyright. Over the years, quite a lot of my ramblings here have been lifted by journalists, etc. Again a bit of courtesy would have been nice. I did make the decision, however, not to bother about this as (a) it would be too much hassle to chase down every plagiarist and (b) I don’t make money from this site anyway. As far as I’m concerned as soon as I put anything on here it is in the public domain. I haven’t changed that opinion with the advent of ChatGPT etc. Indeed, I am pretty sure that all 7000+ articles from this blog were systematically scraped last year.

Books are, however, in a different category. I have never made a living from writing books, but it is dangerous to the livelihood of those that do to have their work systematically stolen in this way. I understand that there may be a class action in the USA against Meta for this blatant larceny, which I hope succeeds.

#ArtificialIntelligence#copyright#LargeLanguageModels
Public
beSpacific

Via #LLRX #AI in #Finance and #Banking, 03/18/25 Semi-monthly column by Sabrina I. Pacifici 5 highlights - The #Finance Sector Is Hitting an Inflection Point With #AI; #ArtificialIntelligence and the #Labor Market; #China #centralbank vows to promote applications of AI #largelanguagemodels; AI and the Extended Workday: Productivity, #Contracting Efficiency, and Distribution of Rents; and The AI #supplychain
llrx.com/2025/03/ai-in-finance #banking #economy

llrx.comAI in Finance and Banking, March 18, 2025 – LLRX
ExploreLive feeds
About