Quick Introduction We have all been on forums, chats, reddit, discord, youtube, or somewhere and heard “Oh! Model XYZ is AMAZEBALLZ!zomgwtfbbq” then downloaded it (or more likely, some quantized form of it) and said “eww… This sucks!” This post is going to be a rather technical series of experiments to demonstrate the impact of implementation-specific hazards with inference. I will be using the term “reference implementation” to describe the lab that published and offers first-party hosting of ...
  • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 day ago

    If you continue down to the section on “digital sentience” you will find other sentences that directly contradict your assertions,

    So, then, what are my assertions?

    Please read my comments so far carefully. Do not hallucinate. Do not make assumptions that aren’t in my text. Do not make mistakes.

    Then find those supposed assertions of mine that Wikipedia seems to contradict.

    • h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      18 hours ago

      Well your main assertion was a wildly incorrect definition of sentience.

      You go on to say that (and I’m paraphrasing) “sentience is in the eye of the beholder”, which is also wrong.

      There’s also the implication that you do think computers are sentient, but you haven’t typed that specifically; I know you said you didn’t want assumptions, but this is a fair inference. Someone who wasn’t emotionally invested I the idea of chatbot sentience wouldn’t push back so hard with basically 0 facts to back them up.

      Your final assertion is that the Wikipedia article doesn’t immediately contradict you, which again, it does in the first sentence. You can see my previous comment for that information tho, I’m not retyping it.