You’re right those arent fucking LLMs, stick with the program. Everybody else in here is talking about one specific thing and its not research oriented machine learning algorithms. It’s bullshit generators.
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).
You’re right those arent fucking LLMs, stick with the program. Everybody else in here is talking about one specific thing and its not research oriented machine learning algorithms. It’s bullshit generators.
This is the exact same technology, as if using semantic reasoning will make your argument any stronger
You were supposed to argue with fervor, not make stuff up…
You’re wrong, they both use LLMs.
Any research using LLM, not on it, is publishing bullshit.
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
Fine then:
IBM - Not an LLM
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
IBM DeepSearch. But you’re half right, the drug I was thinking of was BenevolentAI…using an LLM similar to IBM.
CatBERTa
But nice try. Eat shit, I guess