You were the one throwing out ad hominems, dude.

Lol what? Ad hominems? Oh Jesus Christ you’re one of those… So I ignored your argument and said you didn’t know what you were talking about because you were a janitor? Or that you can’t possibly understand LLMs because you’re too old/young/uneducated?

No. Disagreeing is not an ad hominem. Claiming you don’t understand something is not an ad hominem. Misunderstanding is not an ad hominem. I even apologized for the misunderstanding. And if you can’t see how “I believe in X because I care about humanity,” doesn’t directly insinuate that not caring about X means you don’t care about humanity, then holy fuck communication was never going to work.

It’s a shame, because you had some good points, and I was hoping that apologizing would have reduced your hostility. But I can see now that your goal has been to “Win” the argument. I’ve literally never seen that ad hominem claim used incorrectly, by somebody trying to have an honest discussion.

Also. Nothing I said is ad hominem either. It’s direct commentary of events within this conversation, independent of what your profession is or who you are. Even the “You’re one of those,” comment is not ad hominem.

I’m done 👍.

Okay… You seem to get really upset when I directly quote you, and claim that I’m putting words in your mouth, so I’ll do what you do and cite your phrases exactly.

Why only assume? I cited Wikipedia. You cited nothing.

Because whether you or I are correct in the specific definition is what is means to be an LLM is irrelevant to my purpose in engaging in this conversation. I concede that I might have overreached in my confidence of whether or not it is an LLM, because Nature itself calls it:

“the largest-scale fully open language model[s] to date.”

And a lot of the other abstracts and comments on Evo draw the deep similarities to other LLMs. Again, this comes down to where the clean line between any given AI actually is. And my entire point behind this argument is that it doesn’t matter to anybody outside the lab.

My hate of LLMs is certainly not misinformed. It’s only tribe-based in that I care for humanity.

Stating you hate LLMs because you care for humanity directly supposes that those who do not hate LLMs, do not care for humanity.

“I’m against X because I care about protecting children,” is used ad nauseum to suggest that NOT being against X automatically means you don’t care about children. I’m not putting words in your mouth by interpreting your words in the way words are typically interpreted.

If I misunderstand your meanings, I apologize. But please stop assuming I’m intentionally misinterpreting you when I’m literally just reading your words and responding to them to the best of my ability.

…Except that it isn’t. It’s not a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. It uses a Transformer-like architecture. You cannot use Evo’s architecture to make a chatbot. It’s a GLM.

Okay. Is that the defining feature of where your problem lies? Specifically in the capacity to use human language to interact with AI? Because that’s a specific issue that can be addressed, rather than the vague “I don’t like this technology because it has hurt people.”

Go ahead and train a StripedHyena2 model to be a chatbot, then. I’m sure that will work great.

Okay, second pass. So your issue is specifically with interacting with AI using natural human language?

For someone who’s such a stickler for making 100% correct and unambiguous statements, you’re sure keen on asserting equality where there is merely similarity.

Fair. I shouldn’t have confidently claimed they were identical in every way. The vast majority of the time, I’m talking to people that have very little understanding of the technology, and have just pure vibe-based fears about it. I apologize for the unjustified gross-comparison.

Nobody is claiming these technologies don’t share some (or even a lot of) DNA. Being upset that people correctly use the definition of LLMs as outlined by Wikipedia, where even Evo’s own Github page doesn’t claim it’s an LLM, is just derailing the conversation away from people’s righteous objections.

Again, my focus on the conversation was separating “This technology is universally bad,” from “This technology has been used to hurt people.” I wasn’t trying to derail the conversation, I was trying to focus it. I am far less interested in scientific definitions of what every single model technically classifies as, than I am in addressing the widespread blanket hate against a technology that has no say in how it is used. I don’t think dynamite is evil, nor do I think genetics is evil. Despite both being used for MASSIVE harm at various points in history.

I’ve never seen someone put the episode before the season. I feel uncomfortable.

I did not say all deep learning algorithms are LLMs, I said all LLMs are deep learning algorithms. It’s a nested hierarchy, that relationship only runs one way.

Yes. Evo was trained on text strings of genomic data. That’s what I was trying to say was the misunderstanding. LLMs do not require language as you and I would recognize it. If you think that calling them “Large Language Models,” is misleading, I kinda agree, but then we can start arguing semantics about why scientists name anything the way they do. Dark matter isn’t actually dark, and probably isn’t matter. Dark energy isn’t dark. There was no explosion during the big bang.

If you’re using colloquial word usage and demanding scientific advances follow your expectations, you’re going to have a bad time.

But let’s just say for the sake of argument that you’re 100% correct, and that Evo is not an LLM. Rather, it’s something extremely close, save for a few differences.

People are already angry at the researchers for “Using AI to develop super-bugs,” or saying the genuinely universal “AI has no uses!” And earnestly failing to differentiate between the shit-bot that makes deep-fakes, and the AI designed to identify cancers.

That is why I absolutely reject your disrespectful framing that by defending a technology, and NOT it’s worst uses, I’m somehow opposite to “care(ing) for humanity.”

The actual technology behind Evo and ChatGPT is structurally the same. The methods of training a model on genomic data or weather patterns is indistinguishable from training it on stolen media. The difference is the uses, and targets.

This is my point. They are LLMs. That is not an opinion or a debatable point. They are categorically, definitionally, LLMs. You don’t understand what LLMs are, because LLMs ARE deep learning models, and instead of taking the time to actually learn about the technology you’re responding to my corrections with hostility.

You and I are on the same side. Chat-bots ARE harmful. But putting that label on a technology as a whole is purely tribe-based fear that is already causing the spread of unfounded fear and misinformation.

And the claim wasn’t “Don’t use AI as a source of information,” which I agree with. It was “Don’t use any AI,” which you clarified to mean LLMs. So this is very much pertinent.

Then you don’t actually understand what LLMs are, and you’re using the term as a short-hand to mean chat bots. I’m not trying to be rude, but you need to understand that is just a fact, if you think LLMs can only be chat-bots, and can only be corporate, and can only be trained unethically.

Would it surprise you to know that quite a lot of genuine advances have been made by using LLMs that don’t speak any language you’d recognize? Evo 1 and Evo 2 for example “Speak” genome sequences. There are other models that have been used to improve weather modeling, and animal behaviour analysis.

You’re right that AI is a very broad term, but so is LLM. The problem is that ignorant people see “AI” and automatically assume it’s bad because of the connotation with Chat-Bots.

By AI do you mean LLMs specifically? All LLMs, or just the corporate ones? Because I fully agree that ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. truly are awful. But this is also catching genuinely useful technological advances in with the wide net. AI isn’t just LLMs, LLMs aren’t just chat bots. And claiming a technologies worst implementations are indicative of the entire tech would see just about every single technology ever made fall in the same category.

Good point. Splitting things in to 3rds is the most common function of everything. Why, just the other day I was building a box. I started by measuring the largest face of the backplate and subtracting the thickness of the side plates so I could figure out the internal volume. Most people would have done a simple equation like x-y but I prefer to do 3((x/3) - (y/3)). It’s a much cleaner method.

Wow, that’s extremely offensive! How dare you steal my hometown’s unique and clever slogan?!

My partner and I are going to the Schleswig viking festival on Saturday, then watching The Odyssey in Hamburg on Sunday.

That’s shifting the goal post to cost, and not answering my question. Humans domesticated chickens long before factory farming existed. Animals breed of their own volition. There ARE farms that are only end-of-life slaughter. Do not force their animals to breed, provide excellent lives, etc. Who cares if it’s inefficient? That wasn’t the question. I’m going to ask the same question again. Are you universally against ALL animal products on principle, or would you be okay with goats cheese, as an example, if you could be certain it had a phenomenal life?

And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.

However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn’t mean everyone does.

And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.

That’s an argument for vegetarianism, not veganism. What about wool, honey, milk, eggs. And different countries have different mechanisms. Using the USA as a basis, is admittedly a bad example.

Here in Germany, there are very strict regulations on how living conditions can be claimed, ranging from 1(literal torture) to 5(outdoor access, pasture raised etc.) I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but I can’t agree that it’s impossible and pointless to try when there are places actively trying and actively supporting l.

Actually, counter-intuitively, strict veganism would objectively increase animal suffering if authentic alternatives exist. Which they do. But they are admittedly not easy to find. Ethical farms do exist, and typically self-regulate and self-support by selling the products the animals produce. Wool clothes, free-range eggs, end-of-life meat, excess milk & honey, etc. If your only 2 options are torture products, or nothing, then yes I 100% agree that veganism would be the correct choice. Between these 3 options though, giving your money to an ethical farmer objectively increases the livelihood of the animals under its care, more so than complete avoidance.

You didn’t answer my question. Would you/do you support the ethical and mutually beneficial raising of animals? Chickens for eggs, milk for dairy animals. No abuse, good healthcare, no premature slaughter, etc.?

Edit. I just realized I’m not responding to the same person. But the deflection still stands.

You realize putting googly eyes on a toaster doesn’t give it feelings, right?

Assigning human values and desires to non-humans is not a coherent philosophy or ethical position.

Animals “Exploit” each other throughout the animal kingdom. Ants Literally farm aphids by protecting and herding them in exchange for what they produce. How is this wildly different from keeping a cow or a goat for milk?

Is the cow version evil because we’re humans, but the ant version okay because they aren’t?

Because that’s just making rules based on your desired outcome, not reason.

Then as a vegan you would support raising chickens, pigs, and goats on a small hobby farm where the animals are extremely well cared for and happy?

Neelix had met Kes just a single time a month prior to them being introduced in the show. If that’s grooming, then every vacation fling is also grooming

I agree with the anime trope part, but that only complicates your position.

Is it strange because the anime girl is physically young? Then there’s no issue with Kes.

Is it strange that she’s psychologically immature? Then there’s an issue with dating ANYBODY that is immature or sheltered, which is a much more difficult metric to gauge and standard to set.

Or is it an issue with her chronological age? Then nobody is ever allowed to have interspecies relationships, unless their aging speed matches.

I did actually watch the first and second season, and just never really enjoyed it.

And fair, I wasn’t trying to compare them directly, more pointing out that Star Trek has many episodes that have little to nothing to do with social commentary. And it seemed like that was the ONLY concept being explored in Orville, with sci-fi as a backdrop for funsies.