Barefoot shoes! Started wearing them 2 years ago and will never go back. I hadn’t even realized how much regular shoes crammed my toes together until I started wearing actually foot-shaped shoes. And my feet are narrow.

I just hope we don’t have to go through the whole Third Reich thing again like when TV was invented.

I wouldn’t be surprised if on average women’s feet were narrower than men’s, but even if that’s the case, just make narrow and wide versions of shoes and let people pick the ones that fit their feet. Surely there are men with narrow feet and women with wide feet. It just makes no sense.

As a woman, I think it’s stupid that shoes are gendered in the first place. My shoe size is in the realm that exists for both men’s and women’s shoes. So in shoe stores I can grab the same sneakers from the women’s and the men’s section. Just sort the damn shoes by size and let people pick the ones they like ffs.

“Analrinne” ist wirklich ein furchtbares Wort.

Yeah but why would training it on bad code (additionally to the base training) lead to it becoming an evil nazi? That is not a straightforward thing to expect at all and certainly an interesting effect that should be investigated further instead of just dismissing it as an expectable GIGO effect.

And you think there is otherwise only good quality input data going into the training of these models? I don’t think so. This is a very specific and fascinating observation imo.

It’s not that easy. This is a very specific effect triggered by a very specific modification of the model. It’s definitely very interesting.

Of course material science is technology lol

based on weighted averages of ‘what people are saying’ with a little randomization to spice things up

That is massively oversimplified and not really how neural networks work. Training a neural network is not just calculating averages. It adjusts a very complex network of nodes in such a way that certain input generates certain output. It is entirely possible that during that training process, abstract mechanisms like logic get trained into the system as well, because a good NN can produce meaningful output even on input that is unlike anything it has ever seen before. Arguably that is the case with ChatGPT as well. It has been proven to be able to solve maths/calculating tasks it has never seen before in its training data. Give it a poem that you wrote yourself and have it write an analysis and interpretation - it will do it and it will probably be very good. I really don’t subscribe to this “statistical parrot” narrative that many people seem to believe. Just because it’s not good at the same tasks that humans are good at doesn’t mean it’s not intelligent. Of course it is different from a human brain, so differences in capabilities are to be expected. It has no idea of the physical world, it is not trained to tell truth from lies. Of course it’s not good at these things. That doesn’t mean it’s crap or “not intelligent”. You don’t call a person “not intelligent” just because they’re bad at specific tasks or don’t know some facts. There’s certainly room for improvement with these LLMs, but they’ve only been around in a really usable state for like 2 years or so. Have some patience and in the meantime use it for all the wonderful stuff it’s capable of.