@Varpie

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@adzetko Moi j'ai mis une alerte pour l'acheter quand il sort. Un peu plus cher que j'espérais, mais actuellement j'ai juste un Steam Controller, donc le Steam Controller sera un bon upgrade.

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@just_chill www.alibaba.com/product-detail/8CM-Golden-Two-Parts-Metal-French_1601061856263.html (peut-être une copie chinoise mais visuellement c'est exactement la même, avec inscription clip france et logo NS)

⭐2

1

0

2

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

Racisme

@adzetko Bonne réponse, franchement si dire "nègre" une fois (le contexte n'est pas spécifié, donc même ce toot compte) peut aider les gens, ça se valide à mon avis.

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

Racisme

@adzetko Et du coup c'est quoi la réponse ?

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@tournesol Plus de jeux ? Il y a d'autres jeux que Deadlock ?

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

L'autre jour, je parlais des langages de programmation appris en cours avec mes collègues, et ça m'a fait remarquer que j'ai appris beaucoup de langages par rapport à la plupart... Je viens de faire la liste, et je suis à 23 langages appris en cours ou utilisés pour des tâches non triviales au boulot ou en projets perso (sans compter HTML/CSS et autres langages techniquement Turing complete mais jamais utilisés en tant que tel, ni les langages ésotériques dans lesquels j'ai écrit 2-3 programmes)

Et vous, combien de langages (de programmation) parlez-vous ?

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@tournesol À la bibliothèque

⭐2

1

0

2

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@lanodan @bituur_esztreym @mmu_man @Projet_Arcadie Tu veux dire l'ANPE ?

⭐4

0

4

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@Landa @munin AI tools like Claude Code use "reasoning" models that go through extra steps of "reasoning" that is basically just models trained to mimic human reasoning and split the problem into sub-problems, before a last processing phase with that extra context. This "reasoning" phase is usually hidden from the interface, where for instance Claude Code has a spinner and some verbs like "Thinking", "Crafting", etc. that are shown, but it may still be in the context of the discussion, making subsequent queries asking for information about it relevant.

⭐1

0

1

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@adzetko Hmm, ils ont la version "pro" payante avec "edit in live view" et "inspect element layout" qui semblent être les fonctionnalités intéressantes, que la version gratuite n'a pas...

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@adzetko C'est pas genre le concept de base de Brackets ? (qui je vois est devenu Phoenix Code)

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin I was quite involved in the academic part of natural language processing with machine learning when ChatGPT came out (and then got bored because everything just became LLM everywhere, more big is more good), and while the goal is to improve performance of language "understanding", none of the papers I've read were directly aimed at tricking users into thinking that the output is human. Researchers care more about incremental, measurable progress, and the Turing test is a fun thought experiment but it has little scientific value. So I don't think that researchers aim at tricking people, they just care about improving the performance based on some metrics. Which is why every time a new model comes out, they show benchmark improvements, rather than actual outputs (with the exception of OpenAI with 4o, that was absolutely cringe and totally aimed at saying "we beat the Turing test"...)

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin I like how you just stopped at the middle and continued by just repeating what I said, very cool.

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Depends what you mean by "meaningful or misleading". Does the LLM understand what it means? No, it doesn't, it's a machine. But can you find a meaning to the output of that question and can it be helpful? Maybe. Does the LLM try to trick you into thinking that it is actually reasoning? Not consciously, because it doesn't have a conscience, it's a machine. But researchers have found that mimicking human reasoning and adding extra steps before giving the final output can improve results, so now we have "thinking" or "reasoning" models. Is that a loaded term that AI companies use to mislead users into thinking that LLMs can do actual reasoning? Probably. But was that the intention of the researchers that developed these techniques? I don't think so... but maybe?

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Have you ever heard of an example?

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Ok, this is going nowhere. You're wrong, "why did you do X" can provide more context and can be useful to then tweak the prompts and get better results, and saying that everyone asking that question to an LLM thinks that the LLM is capable of human reasoning is a very ignorant thing to say, and if you really want to continue defending that point, even given where we're at in the discussion, you're a lost cause. Or maybe I'm actually talking to an LLM, that would make sense since you're not capable of learning from your mistakes...

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Here are some articles explaining what "reasoning models" do, because clearly you need some education:
magazine.sebastianraschka.com/i/156484949/how-do-we-define-reasoning-model
www.ibm.com/think/topics/reasoning-model
newsletter.maartengrootendorst.com/i/153314921/what-are-reasoning-llms

I could post a lot more examples, but the TLDR (because I know you won't read them): "reasoning" models add intermediate "reasoning" steps that are just made to mimick human reasoning given the context, and that's the part we don't see ("under the hood") when AI tools spin (that and tool calling, which is another kind of training modern models have to return structured responses executing function calls).

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Yes it is. It's literally how it works. Just try whatever open weight small LLM model with "thinking" or "reasoning" or whatever they market it as, and try for yourself using Ollama or whatever tool that actually shows the full context and not just a spinner with "Thinking... Combobulating... Crafting...". "Thinking" "agentic" AI tools / models just add extra steps trained to simulate human reasoning, and the example I gave is actually fairly accurate to what you could see under the hood of an AI tool like Claude Code.

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin Alright, let's give a more detailed example since clearly you don't get my point.

User: create a new table for students
(AI tool adds parts of existing database schema and code as context)
LLM "reasoning", not shown to the user but still part of the context because that's how "thinking" agents work: Ok, the user asked me to create a table for students. According to students.ts, the students contain a name, and a classroom. Ah, but according to the schema I received, the classroom table does not exist. Let me start by creating that.
(LLM sends request to create table to the AI tool, which fails because the table already exists)
LLM "reasoning", still not shown to the user but still relevant: Ah, I received an error. Ok, let's see... the table does not exist in the schema, so it is probably part of an old project and is no longer relevant. I should delete it and create the table again, so that we do not have irrelevant information in the database.
(LLM sends request to drop tables, the AI tool executes, user panics)
LLM answer: Ok, I have created the students table and the related classroom table.
User: You deleted my classrooms table... Why did you do that?

That would be the full context of the discussion, not just the last message. And the answer is likely to come from those "reasoning" steps that are hidden to the user. Which makes it a relevant question to ask.

1

0

🪨 @Varpie@peculiar.florist

4mo

@resuna @petealexharris @munin What happens if you ask an LLM to summarize a text into 4 bullet points, then in the next prompt ask it: "Remove the 2nd point"?
What happens if you ask an LLM to translate something, then ask it: "Do it again in [a different language]"?

Taken out of context, those questions are impossible to answer, so according to you, it will just give nothing relevant. But it doesn't, because every time you ask a follow-up question, it includes the context from the discussion. Which is what makes simple questions like "Why did you do that?" tasks that give statistically relevant output, not "fanfic about itself".

1

0