refuse consent?

You may need to clarify that thought.

I don't think the poster has a viewpoint that 'refuses consent', their viewpoint is their writing they put for others to view is for others to view, regardless of how it is viewed. They seem to be giving consent, not refusing it, no?

> refuse consent?

Who said anything about refusing consent?

> I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether.

> Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.

This is what I was responding to. I do not understand your thinking in this post.

> This is what I was responding to. I do not understand your thinking in this post.

I thought it was clear from "refuses to include any sort of consent" that I am talking specifically about holding an opinion that refuses to include consideration for consent, not refuses consent for usage.

But that's what I'm confused about:

How is freely giving consent for (all) others to read your content not 'considering consent'?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really don't see the missing piece that isn't written that connects those dots.

Gemma4 is apache2 licensed.

I am unsure about the openness of the training data itself. That too should be required for a LLM to be considered 'open'.

Open source is the only way forward, I agree.

I think it's more a proof of concept: locally trained. It would take lots of resources/time to train something non-trivial.

Ideas do not compete based on how true they are but how easily they are remembered.

You are correct that ideas do not compete based on how true they are but how easily they are remembered.

what tokens/s are you getting with a 122B MoE model in this setup? I didn't see any benchmarks in the benchmarks section on the readme.md

https://www.sharpai.org/benchmark/ The MLX part is what we've done with SwiftLM, the local result is still being verified more details are on-going.

I'll add more details. We just wired up the pipeline on both MAC and IOS.

yeah this I'd like to see added to teh readme.

Not futuristic: but adobe - the cheapest/oldest building material around - has this property naturally (on a 12hr cycle). Thick walls insulate from the heat during the day, and radiate that heat during the night: It's hyper efficient.

Building regulations killed it's use in America! Requiring the adding in of rebar actually makes it weaker... as well as more expensive than wood (go ahead and guess which groups lobbied for that set of regulations).

Interesting... do you know how well adobe stacks? That is, is it limited to mostly single-storey buildings?

That hesitation indicates the feeling that what you are about to type matters.

Mayhapse - in the context of getting the AI to behave as you wish - such hesitations are valid. not because it is conscious: but because the context window would be polluted or corrupted... possibly mis-aligning the agent in the process.

Santa clause is not a being: modeling him as if he were can be useful, an obviously pointed example is in certain discussions about what it means to be 'real'.

My point is, if your instinct is to be kind: don't quash that because you don't consider what you are talking to as sentient. I don't yell at my rubber duck. rubber ducky is just going to rubber ducky.

I buy that.

1. To the extent that a chatbot is trained on real human interaction, we should exhibit real human interactions for best result.

2. You are either a kind person or not. A kind person behaves kindly without asking whether kindness is warranted.

The word you are looking for, when your proprioception is extended into the tool (like feeling you are the car) you use: proprioextension. coined a while ago.

Is there actually an advantage? that's toted. but no one can ever point to real data about it... and all the data suggests the exact opposite... that for most cases: cis-women out-compete trans-women.

It’s not in the article.

They list their findings but no data. They effectively are just issuing an opinion. The opinion may be more considered than the rest of ours, but it’s not data.