• glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    23 days ago

    You were supposed to argue with fervor, not make stuff up…

    You’re wrong, they both use LLMs.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 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
          23 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
            ·
            23 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