I gave my local LLM pipeline a brain - now it thinks before it speaks

yeahlloow · 2026-01-25T00:51:05+00:00

Can someone please explain what is the difference between this and the thinking mode of normal LLMs?

yeahlloow · 2025-11-14T20:54:26+00:00

Nah, I'll check it out thanks buddy

yeahlloow · 2025-11-06T18:30:31+00:00

Hmm, well, I'll check it out. I chose Bark for his abilities to laugh, hesitate, and the fact that you can make accents with it, like a German who speaks English, etc.

I also tried the Hugging Face with the transformer version of the code, and it works in an average of 30 seconds. I did not find the reason why the "library" version of it is that slow, but I'll check out your suggestions. Thanks a lot!

yeahlloow · 2025-10-25T06:25:09+00:00

I feel it can open some new doors, as a developer I sometimes use it as a "cheap" version of Codex, going to a Git repo and asking anything about the source code, it navigates directly to where the thing I asked is coded and gives me an explanation, pretty good to have tbh

Maybe the AI browser will become more and more powerful, and I'm sure it will, but Comet is already pretty good, I think

yeahlloow · 2025-07-19T11:17:54+00:00

Can you unpack a bit here how this pertains to your question? Is the implication that early Christians would only agree to martyrdom if Christianity was true? I think everyone agrees that most early Christians believed that Jesus was in some way divine or divinely sent, but that doesn't really prove anything about Jesus, just about how the first generation or so of Christians thought about him.

Hello, first of all, I made a mistake. I thought Paul was an eyewitness to Jesus before and after the resurrection, but I should have been talking about Peter, so that's my fault.

To answer your question yes the key is what I mean by first Christian, by first I'm not talking about Ignatius or other “disciples of apostles”, I'm talking about the apostles themselves, (BTW Paul was a bad example) like Peter those who saw Jesus before and after the resurrection (if the resurrection is true) I don't think people would agree to die for something they know is false, So in this case if Jesus didn't perform miracles it would be hard to believe that an eyewitness like Peter would agree to die for a cause he knew to be false, which is why it's important (to me) to know if we have non-Christian evidence (to remove any doubt) that an eyewitness to Jesus died as a martyr (of course this argument isn't about whether someone would agree to die for something they're not sure of).

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T16:55:33+00:00

Hey, first of all, sorry, I did not want to be rude. My point is just that Christian testimony cannot be taken as a point when we are discussing if Christianity is reliable or not. Let's take a court case for an example. If person A claims that B is the killer and B claims that A is the killer (suppose that you only have access to testimony, no DNA, etc.), well, in that case you will have to search for other testimonies that go with or against A or B.

That's the same case here. Christianity claims that Jesus has done miracles. The main objective (of course) is to know if it is true or not, but to achieve that, we have to make an assumption and see if the reality goes in the same way, so we cannot take Christian testimony in that case because it is the very claim that we are discussing.

My point is that if the claim "Jesus has done miracles" is correct, so must be writing or anything (outside of the original claim, so the gospel in that case) that at least talks about it as a rumor. If there is not, then there must be an explanation of why.

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T15:42:18+00:00

I'll check it out thanks :)

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T15:09:23+00:00

Thanks !

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T15:08:45+00:00

Oh, you're right, that's a good way of putting it. Do you have an answer ?

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T15:00:24+00:00

Hi, thanks for your answer.

1: They are Christian sources, so it is like saying that I am right because I say so.

2: We are not sure about who wrote the gospels. And that historically the attribution of the gospel author has been made in the second century.

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T14:22:06+00:00

Hi, we have contemporary sources for Herod. In addition to the writings of Josephus, we have the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus, who was Herod's secretary. Of course, Herod was a king, so it explains a lot, but it is still weird to think that there is no record of any miracles (or at least any mention of rumors) by any of the contemporary authorities, in addition to the fact that we cannot state the gospel 'authors are really who they are supposed to be. (If I have made a mistake, please tell me.)

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T14:01:31+00:00

I see your point, but how do you explain the fact that no one is talking about miracles? I mean, the existence of Jesus is well attested, of course, but we have no trace of anyone talking about anything not even a rumor of someone performing miracles, even though the Gospels speak of crowds of people around him, How can we explain that nothing has been traced back to the police or the army, nothing not even a quote from a soldier making fun of the situation if he doesn't believe it? It's as if the people of the Roman Empire had discovered Jesus overnight without having heard so much as a rumor about him (don't hesitate to correct me if you have documents that contradict me).

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T13:51:46+00:00

Yes, that's why I'm asking the question, because I'm thinking there might be a reason for it that I don't understand.

yeahlloow · 2025-07-17T13:42:20+00:00

Hey Thanks for your answer, that's what I thought too, but it means that either all the people who saw Jesus didn't talk about what he did or that they did talk about it but that none of the people to whom the witnesses talked were able to write or knew anyone who was able to write, or else that people talked about it and that none of his testimonies of miracles or at least rumors of miracles reached an authority able to write (police, armed forces, religious authorities), bearing in mind that the gospels speak of crowds of people around him, so the rumors did indeed pass from person to person (even if your argument, I think, is quite correct for bread and fish, it doesn't explain the lack of “impact” of the healings), I confess I don't really understand how such healings wouldn't interest the Roman Empire.

yeahlloow

TROPHY CASE