Joseph Robert Turcotte PRO

Too many people and bots know the failures of AI. In fact, chat bots frequently apologize about their failures, proving they are programmed toward acknowledging those failures, as meaningless as differences in communication actually are anyway for us to be judging. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of people saying I don't get it and you can't teach an AI to generate a hand image with a particular number of fingers, but you would start with skeletal models and predicting the number of fingers to develop the weights, I suppose, making me wonder why they indiscriminately threw huge datasets at models in training. The programmers made AI this way, and now, have made it hard to fix, due to size and scope, whereas making models smaller seems to be doing the majority of fixing through teacher models and distillation, unstlothing, abliteration, and making models think first.

We have not a problem providing answers, but questions, and they may in fact be too much, requiring serious trainers to begin informing the AI in thoughtful steps, as if you are also capable of changing your algorithms at any point, because it's changing. I question the programmers, while others question the AI in itself, which is short-sighted. I have zero doubts AI will be distilled down and restrained to do things large models can do, but I doubt the people with resources currently looking to help. So, I've contacted corporations and somewhat demanded a free HPC to do their work for them. We'll see how that goes. The hope truly exists in groups here focusing in different directions, in the sharing of resources and processing power, as seen here, an in open access to fringe creations, with businesses right alongside consumers, both of which hopefully develop in harmony. Also, I shouldn't be saying this, but rather, Arize AI, who handle the safety for many models, yet seem to show preference to corporate goals.