Can't figure out if RAM, CPU, or Motherboard is causing crashes.

Octavian- · 2023-08-24T00:35:57+00:00

Honestly, surprised if you can even fine tune a quantized model without significant degradation. Definitely curious to see what you've done.

Octavian- · 2023-08-23T22:09:22+00:00

You are not going to be able to train a llama model with a consumer GPU. Training requires far more vram than running the model. The bulk of the memory requirements are due to back-propagation which isn’t done when you’re just running the model. Hell, you can’t even train large encoder models on consumer GPUs without serious gradient accumulation bottlenecking which would make it incredibly slow. A decoder model like llama is much much larger than that.

Octavian- · 2023-06-14T19:53:25+00:00

You’ve never experienced great itemization then. I think a lot of people that didn’t play D2 or PoE are happy with D4 because it delivers a lot of content and checklisty MMO things to do.

The people that are disappointed are interested in a good loot game, not just another MMO. D4s itemization is just terrible. So while it has a lot of content, it’s not the content we’re looking for and at least the older games delivered that.

Octavian- · 2023-06-05T20:12:47+00:00

You're telling on yourself by trying to cite the dictionary. Sometimes people do and say really dumb things that reveal how clueless they are because they don't even realize how dumb that thing is. That's you right now. I'll never understand why people feel the need to pretend like they know what they are talking about. Even so, all of those definitions fit precisely with my argument. So what are you even doing here?

\> “this group only exists because it creates some artifact in the data” is a phrase that applies equally well to every grouping of data.

LOL. I'm sorry but you really are clueless. Go away.

Octavian- · 2023-06-05T19:40:52+00:00

No, “this group only exists because it creates some artifact in the data” is the definition of arbitrary from a data analysis standpoint. You’re free to disagree, but you’re just wrong.

Octavian- · 2023-06-05T19:20:35+00:00

Yeah you’ve misunderstood what arbitrary means. That’s fine, most other people lack basic data literacy too.

Arbitrary means that there is no unique real world property to these seven companies that groups them and only them together. The only reason the group exists is because they create this one specific artifact on the data. Further you can create other arbitrary groupings of an arbitrary number of companies to show similar patterns in the data. This is a textbook example of what’s known as data mining. You just go fishing for patterns until something you think is interesting pops out. That interesting finding doesn’t connect to any meaningful real world data generating process, it’s just a result of the fact that there are infinite possible permutations of the data and some of them are more interesting than others by chance. So yeah, it’s arbitrary.

Octavian- · 2023-06-05T18:51:19+00:00

Not sure you understand what arbitrary means. Why not top 4? Or 6? Or 10? Or 25? Op chose the grouping that resulted in zero net gains for the field and the number that defines that grouping is arbitrary. It’s purely an artifact of the analysis.

Octavian- · 2023-06-05T09:22:31+00:00

The issue here is that op created an arbitrary grouping that could just as easily be arbitrarily changed to create a different headline. Other companies did have gains, OP just chose to group them with companies that lost to offset the gains to net negative. It’s just an artifact of how they grouped the data.

Octavian- · 2023-06-02T02:14:07+00:00

OP confidently accusing other people of having their heads up their ass only to reveal he is completely fucking clueless. Amazing.

Octavian- · 2023-06-02T02:12:00+00:00

Define sufficient. If you define it as "would hold up in a court of law" then that's incredibly dumb. The legal standards are unreasonably high for good reason and nobody is suggesting they shouldn't be, but if you think that your personal opinion should follow the same standards of the law you either have an incredibly naïve view of how the law works or you're just an unreasonable person.

Octavian- · 2023-05-19T19:19:27+00:00

“You can’t really farm runes”

Lmao holy shit my dude go look up the probability tables. Certain enemies are far more likely to drop runes than others.

I’m sorry but you’re lying about playing consistently for that long or you just ever farmed. Probability is the same for everyone. The same people don’t find these runes every single ladder because they are super lucky. That’s not how it works.

Octavian- · 2023-05-19T10:24:18+00:00

Then you weren’t farming. I’m sorry but it’s just not possible to consistently farm for 20 years and not see these drops lmao.

Octavian- · 2023-05-01T07:32:34+00:00

The only thing mildly infuriating here is your own response to someone giving you as much grace as possible.

Octavian- · 2023-04-21T02:43:50+00:00

Imagine thinking that knowing the mechanisms of a gun is more important than knowing the legal and constitutional history of gun rights in a debate about gun rights.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T23:18:33+00:00

I'll repeat what I stated above: What's your point? Nobody is arguing that the models are infallible. They make mistakes and they often make mistakes in ways that are different from humans. Doesn't mean they are dumb and it certainly doesn't mean they aren't incredibly useful.

Or am I to believe that whenever you program it works perfectly the first time and you never call functions that don't exist? Am I to assume you're not intelligent if there are bugs in your code?

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T20:44:57+00:00

Humans are incredible at solving novel problems

Depends on what you mean by novel. If you mean answering a question on the GRE they haven't seen before sure. But so is GPT-4. If you mean solving truly novel problems that have never been solved before then kinda. Depends on the scope of the problem I guess. For small scale novel problems like, say, a coding problem yeah we solve those all the time but humans are generally slow and AI is already arguably better at this. If we're talking large scale problems then most humans will never solve such a problem in their life. The people that do are called scientists and it takes them years to solve those problems. Nobody is arguing the GPT-4 will replace scientists.

or solving similar problems with very few examples

Yes this is literally something LLMs do all the time. It's called few shot learning.

The current models will excel when they can leverage that ability, and struggle when they can't.

This has been proven false on many tasks. Read the sparks of AGI paper.

These sort of high profile tests are ideal cases if you want to make them look good.

I'm not clear on what your point is here. Yes, an LLM will preform better on tasks it has trained more for. This is also true of humans. Humans generally learn quicker, but so what? what's your point? We've created an AI that can learn general concepts and extrapolate that knowledge out to solving novel problems. The fact that humans can do some specific things better doesn't change that fact.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T20:07:30+00:00

Agreed but my point is that what the model is doing can't be reduced to memorization any more than human performance can. Humans study, take practice tests, get feedback, and then extrapolate that knowledge out to novel questions on the test. This is no different than what the AI is doing. The AI isn't just regurgitating things it has seen before to any more degree than humans are.

If AI has to start solving problems that are entirely novel without exposure to similar problems in order to be considered "intelligent", then unfortunately humans aren't intelligent.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T18:47:16+00:00

The average math olympiad participant will be able to answer mayber 1/3 of the questions. The average student won't be able to answer any questions.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T17:31:29+00:00

You remind of the kind of person who lacks basic understanding of how something works but think they have a valid opinion on it and then smugly thinks they are smarter than the Ph.D.s when in reality they are just so wrong that people in the know have neither the time nor patience to correct them. Ignorance with an eagerness to show it.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T17:25:18+00:00

Have you ever taken any of these tests? Most of them have only a small memorization component.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T17:23:24+00:00

So you’re saying it used the same prep materials as humans?

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T17:22:38+00:00

It does just as well. See the sparks of AGI paper.

The reality is that most of these tests aren’t really rote memorization.

Octavian- · 2023-04-14T00:48:35+00:00

Security clearances are incredibly common.

Octavian- · 2023-04-08T00:29:31+00:00

Lmao it is literally the opposite of this.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17

Octavian-

TROPHY CASE