Soap and water do wonders for 90% of the restroom cleaning.
The problem is that the other 10% are important too.
Not quite. I'm focusing on chatbots like Bard, ChatGPT and the likes, and their technology (LLM, or large language model).
At the core those LLMs work like this: they pick words, split them into "tokens", and then perform a few operations on those tokens, across multiple layers. But at the end of the day they still work with the words themselves, not with the meaning being encoded by those words.
What I want is an LLM that assigns multiple meanings for those words, and performs the operations above on the meaning itself. In other words the LLM would actually understand you, not just chain words.
Yup, that's the stuff. It's mostly a finishing touch, to get rid of bacteria.
At the very least, I'd recommend you:
Everyone has the cleaning agents that they swear upon, so look for something that works for you. For me it's
Important detail: do not mix any two of the cleaning agents that I've mentioned. Specially not ammonium and bleach.
For reference, the disinfecting agent that I use is called "pinho sol", but I have no idea if it's sold outside Brazil. You probably have some similar product wherever you live.
Complexity does not mean sophistication when it comes to AI and never has and to treat it as such is just a forceful way to make your ideas come true without putting in the real effort.
It's a bit off-topic, but what I really want is a language model that assigns semantic values to the tokens, and handles those values instead of directly working with the tokens themselves. That would be probably far less complex than current state-of-art LLMs, but way more sophisticated, and require far less data for "training".
creating a label and checking the skip invoice box
That works great too, specially if you want to use less foolproof filters. Or even a mix of both strategies.
Oh "great", more crap between Ctrl and Alt.
[Grumpy grandpa] In my times, the space row only had five keys! And we did more than those youngsters do with eight, now nine keys!
Thank you! It's working now.
It's giving me an error, "Error Finding Entity // Make sure you spelled the entity correctly and that it exists!", when I use my username for lemmy.ml; curiously it works well when I do it for my beehaw.org account.
Create your account through old.reddit.com; when it asks you for an email, simply press "next". And, if you need an e-mail provider for some other reason, protonmail.com doesn't ask you for your phone number.
That said do you really need a reddit account?
[Note: this is my personal take, not Chomsky's]
We can recognise colours and things even without properly labelling them. (Colour example: I have no clue on how to call the colour of my cat's fur, but I'm fairly certain to remember thus recognise it.) However, it's hard to handle them logically this way.
And at least for me this is the main role of the internal monologue. It isn't just about repeating the state of the things, it's about connecting pieces of info together, as if I was explaining the link to another person.
Perhaps those without verbal internal monologue/dialogue have a more persistent innate language, that is not overwritten by common external language?
Possible; I don't know, really. It's also possible that the "innate language" doesn't really exist, only the innate ability to learn a language; but that ability is already enough to structure simple reasoning.
If you want, please add your tips to the comments.
Here are mine - just a bunch of opinions/suggestions from someone who used to be a forum mod, then a subreddit mod.
As this is a rather big wall of text, I'll split it into sections, contained within spoiler tags.
Mindset and duty.
A happy mod is a good mod. Take care of your personal life first.
Your comm[unity] is not your personal possession or project, it's a collective effort. You're just its representative - be humble but proud about it.
Use your comm as any other user would. Be active in it, interact with other users, discuss, learn, have fun.
If you don't enjoy your comm any more, for whatever reason, pass the torch to newer mods.
Check your comm at least a few times per day. A quick peek is fine for slower comms.
It's useful to follow the RSS feed of the comms that you moderate, as it'll be quicker to spot rule-breaking posts. You can do it here:
In days that your comm is too slow, specially at the beginning, it's your job to provide content for your comm.
Recruitment
Avoid recruiting mods who:
*Major exception: if your comm got some biiiig problem, and nobody seems to be able to solve it.
If you get multiple people willing to mod, you can be a bit pickier. Use open-ended questions to trial them. Ideally new mods should:
A lazy mod is less worse than a well-intentioned but dumb mod.
Rules and their enforcement
You do not know the users' intentions, thoughts or beliefs. However, you do know how they behave and what they say. Use the later, not the former, in your rules.
If a rule cannot be enforced, it is not a rule. It's at most a request.
Enforce rules by spirit, but the letter should follow fashion. There's some room to be sloppy with this with smaller comms, but not the bigger ones.
Do not enforce "hidden rules". If there's some shitty behaviour that needs to be addressed, do it in the open.
Do not enforce new rules retro-actively. You're just creating more work for yourself and pissing off users, for no good reason.
Be succinct when phrasing the rules. If necessary/desired, write down two versions of it:
Synchronise changes in all versions of your rules. Few things confuse users the most than rule disparity.
If your comm got more than seven rules, it's probably already too much. Consider merging them.
It's fine to use imperative in the rules ("do this", "don't do that"), as it's succinct and you're in a position to do so.
Every rule has a grey area, of things that are only arguably rule-breaking content. Try to minimise the grey area when possible, but keep in mind that you'll never get rid of it.
Beware the fluff principle: voting alone will allow only the lowest common denominator content to the top, and shove down well thought content that is hard to judge. Take that into account when creating rules.
Handling other users
Ask community input periodically. Don't use votes for this, let other users speak their mind.
Input from rule-lawyers is surprisingly useful to find issues in your rules. And a few people will be abler to phrase your own rules better than you do.
Even then, asking community input is not an excuse to relay responsibility. You're still the mod.
It's useful to keep notes of a few users from your comm:
Activity of your comm's users outside your own comm should be only taken into account as much as it might predict their future activity in your comm. There are a few corner cases to do so, but by default you're better off not doing this.
Don't feel afraid to upstream reports of specially problematic users to the admins of your instance. Specially if they're more on the stricter side.
This is debatable, but I personally believe that a few types of users, regardless of their intentions, should be handled as you would handle trolls and shitposters. They are:
This sort of user is prone to piss off other users, specially the most contributive ones.
When there's a fight between users, typically, at least one of them is stupid. Make sure to know which one (or if both) before intervening.
I just deep-fried and filled a batch of the thing above. They turned out delicious, so I'm sharing here.
Here's a link for the recipe for the dough; I followed it closely, the only thing was that I subbed the butter with veg oil. The recipe yielded ~20 of them, but this depends a lot on the size that you cut them.
Recipe for the custard filling:
Just mix everything together until homogeneous, then heat it on low fire, while stirring constantly, until it thickens. I didn't use the cornstarch because I wanted it slightly runnier, but do add it if you like a thicker custard.
The source that I've linked mentions semantic embedding; so does further literature on the internet. However, the operations are still being performed with the vectors resulting from the tokens themselves, with said embedding playing a secondary role.
This is evident for example through excerpts like
Emphasis mine. A similar conclusion (that the LLM is still handling the tokens, not their meaning) can be reached by analysing the hallucinations that your typical LLM bot outputs, and asking why that hallu is there.
What I'm proposing is deeper than that. It's to use the input tokens (i.e. morphemes) only to retrieve the sememes (units of meaning; further info here) that they're conveying, then discard the tokens themselves, and perform the operations solely on the sememes. Then for the output you translate the sememes obtained by the transformer into morphemes=tokens again.
I believe that this would have two big benefits:
And it might be an additional layer, but the whole approach is considerably simpler than what's being done currently - pretending that the tokens themselves have some intrinsic value, then playing whack-a-mole with situations where the token and the contextually assigned value (by the human using the LLM) differ.
[This could even go deeper, handling a pragmatic layer beyond the tokens/morphemes and the units of meaning/sememes. It would be closer to what @njordomir@lemmy.world understood from my other comment, as it would then deal with the intent of the utterance.]