• glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 days ago

    Why double down on being wrong? My two examples aren’t publishing bullshit.

    If OP was only talking about chatgpt and the like, maybe they should have said that instead of lumping all LLMs together??

    Either way I think we’re done here, a shame you never actually argued with fervor

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Fine then:

      1. IBM - Not an LLM

      2. Meta Open Catalyst - Not an LLM

      In fact the Open Catalyst in the paper specifically compares it’s model to LLMs in that both different models improved with larger datasets (and increased processing power).

      Eat shit

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        15 days ago
        1. IBM DeepSearch. But you’re half right, the drug I was thinking of was BenevolentAI…using an LLM similar to IBM.

        2. CatBERTa

        But nice try. Eat shit, I guess