Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

I am the only AI engineer that is using primarily off-line data to train AI. It ain’t easy and maybe that’s why they don’t. But it is vital to preserve the data but the context of humanity in each era. This 1 hour VHS was likely only seen a...

19,364 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Meta's AI investments have been incredibly successful, but investors refuse to see it. The company posted 33% advertising revenue growth last quarter on $55B in revenue. Meanwhile Google's was 19%, and Amazon, which is much smaller, was 24%. Eric Seufert: "I was at this dinner [with hedge fund people]. I was talking about why these investments that Meta's making *right now* are bearing fruit *right now*." "[Meta posted] 33% advertising revenue growth last quarter on $55B in revenue. That's incredible. Google Search was 19 percent. Amazon, which is much smaller, was 24%. They're outgrowing everyone except for AppLovin and Reddit. And people don't believe it." "And I asked somebody, 'What would it take to convince you that Meta's AI investments are actually productive in this moment in time?' And they said, '40%.'" "40% growth on $55B-$60B in revenue? Where did that number come from? This is pulled out of thin air." "This is what Meta needs to do. They need to be able to point to something and say, 'You see that ad? That was created by our AI investments.'" "Gem is Meta's foundation model that they trained for ranking. That's important. But you can't see it." "A lot of the research analysts, they're really smart people. But they operate in this paradigm of like, 'Spreadsheet says this. I get it. I can understand why ranking investments would actually be really beneficial for the company. But I put a number in the spreadsheet, and it spits out something. That's the tool I have to work with.'" "These are really smart people. I think they conceptually get why these are good investments. But they have nothing to tie it to that's quantitative." "I think when you can point to the ad that's created, and you can say, 'Look, this ad was created with data that only we have. It's the foundation image model that we built that is trained — not fine-tuned, but trained — on our own data. Only we can do that.'" "If they can point to the output and say, 'That ad that you saw in your IG feed was created only as a result of our ability to train on this data that only we have, then I think you can make the case [for the AI investments]."

TBPN

17,830 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

Brian Roemmele

72,312 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten