We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
adding missing information and deleting errors
Which is to say, “I’m sick of Grok accurately portraying me as an evil dipshit, so I’m going to feed it a bunch of right-wing talking points and get rid of anything that hurts my feelings.”
That is definitely how I read it.
History can’t just be ‘rewritten’ by A.I. and taken as truth. That’s fucking stupid.
“If we take this 0.84 accuracy model and train another 0.84 accuracy model on it that will make it a 1.68 accuracy model!”
~Fucking Dumbass
He’s been frustrated by the fact that he can’t make Wikipedia ‘tell the truth’ for years. This will be his attempt to replace it.
There are thousands of backups of wikipedia, and you can download the entire thing legally, for free.
He’ll never be rid of it.
Wikipedia may even outlive humanity, ever so slightly.
Seconds after the last human being dies, the Wikipedia page is updated to read:
Humans (Homo sapiens) or modern humans were the most common and widespread species of primate
And then 30 seconds after that it’ll get reverted because the edit contains primary sources.
Elon Musk, like most pseudo intellectuals, has a very shallow understanding of things. Human knowledge is full of holes, and they cannot simply be resolved through logic, which Mush the dweeb imagines.
Uh, just a thought. Please pardon, I’m not an Elon shill, I just think your argument phrasing is off.
How would you know there are holes in understanding, without logic. How would you remedy gaps of understanding in human knowledge, without the application of logic to find things are consistent?
You have to have data to apply your logic too.
If it is raining, the sidewalk is wet. Does that mean if the sidewalk is wet, that it is raining?
There are domains of human knowledge that we will never have data on. There’s no logical way for me to 100% determine what was in Abraham Lincoln’s pockets on the day he was shot.
When you read real academic texts, you’ll notice that there is always the “this suggests that,” “we can speculate that,” etc etc. The real world is not straight math and binary logic. The closest fields to that might be physics and chemistry to a lesser extent, but even then - theoretical physics must be backed by experimentation and data.
Thanks I’ve never heard of data. And I’ve never read an academic text either. Condescending pos
So, while I’m ironing out your logic for you, “what else would you rely on, if not logic, to prove or disprove and ascertain knowledge about gaps?”
You asked a question, I gave an answer. I’m not sure where you get “condescending” there. I was assuming you had read an academic text, so I was hoping that you might have seen those patterns before.
You would look at the data for gaps, as my answer explained. You could use logic to predict some gaps, but not all gaps would be predictable. Mendeleev was able to use logic and patterns in the periodic table to predict the existence of germanium and other elements, which data confirmed, but you could not logically derive the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons without the later experimentations of say, JJ Thompson and Rutherford.
You can’t just feed the sum of human knowledge into a computer and expect it to know everything. You can’t predict “unknown unknowns” with logic.
“Deleting Errors” should sound alarm bells in your head.
And the adding missing information doesn’t. Isn’t that just saying we are going to make shit up.
I elaborated below, but basically Musk has no idea WTF he’s talking about.
If I had his “f you” money, I’d at least try a diffusion or bitnet model (and open the weights for others to improve on), and probably 100 other papers I consider low hanging fruit, before this absolutely dumb boomer take.
He’s such an idiot know it all. It’s so painful whenever he ventures into a field you sorta know.
But he might just be shouting nonsense on Twitter while X employees actually do something different. Because if they take his orders verbatim they’re going to get crap models, even with all the stupid brute force they have.
Whatever. The next generation will have to learn to trust whether the material is true or not by using sources like Wikipedia or books by well-regarded authors.
The other thing that he doesn’t understand (and most “AI” advocates don’t either) is that LLMs have nothing to do with facts or information. They’re just probabilistic models that pick the next word(s) based on context. Anyone trying to address the facts and information produced by these models is completely missing the point.
Thinking wikipedia or other unbiased sources will still be available in a decade or so is wishful thinking. Once the digital stranglehold kicks in, it’ll be mandatory sign-in with gov vetted identity provider and your sources will be limited to what that gov allows you to see. MMW.
Wikipedia is quite resilient - you can even put it on a USB drive. As long as you have a free operating system, there will always be ways to access it.
I keep a partial local copy of Wikipedia on my phone and backup device with an app called Kiwix. Great if you need access to certain items in remote areas with no access to the internet.
They may laugh now, but you’re gonna kick ass when you get isekai’d.
Yes. There will be no websites only AI and apps. You will be automatically logged in to the apps. Linux, Lemmy will be baned. We will be classed as hackers and criminals. We probably have to build our own mesh network for communication or access it from a secret location.
Can’t stop the signal.
asdf
Wikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn’t mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That’s why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it’s limitations, I think a lot of people don’t though.
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven’t found one that’s even close to outright wrong.
asdf
So what would you consider to be a trustworthy source?
“and then on retrain on that”
Thats called model collapse.
So where will Musk find that missing information and how will he detect “errors”?
Dude is gonna spend Manhattan Project level money making another stupid fucking shitbot. Trained on regurgitated AI Slop.
Glorious.
So they’re just going to fill it with Hitler’s world view, got it.
Typical and expected.
I mean, this is the same guy who said we’d be living on Mars in 2025.
In a sense, he’s right. I miss good old Earth.
I never would have thought it possible that a person could be so full of themselves to say something like that
An interesting thought experiment: I think he’s full of shit, you think he’s full of himself. Maybe there’s a “theory of everything” here somewhere. E = shit squared?
The thing that annoys me most is that there have been studies done on LLMs where, when trained on subsets of output, it produces increasingly noisier output.
Sources (unordered):
- What is model collapse?
- AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data
- Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loop
- Collapse of Self-trained Language Models
Whatever nonsense Muskrat is spewing, it is factually incorrect. He won’t be able to successfully retrain any model on generated content. At least, not an LLM if he wants a successful product. If anything, he will be producing a model that is heavily trained on censored datasets.
It’s not so simple, there are papers on zero data ‘self play’ or other schemes for using other LLM’s output.
Distillation is probably the only one you’d want for a pretrain, specifically.
Training an AI model on AI output? Isn’t that like the one big no-no?
We have seen from his many other comments about this, that he just wants a propaganda bot that regurgitates all of the right wing talking points. So that will definitely be easier to achieve if he does it that way.
So just making shit up.
Don’t forget the retraining on the made up shit part!
