[flagged]
I can't really judge how I might personally benefit from the current direction because I am uncertain what that direction is, and indeed if it will be sustained.
If you are trying to allege that I have some personal affiliation to an organisation where I might benefit more than any average member of the public, then I must disappoint you. I work on my own projects, I sometimes make money from games that I make.
I do not wish for a hypercapitalist dystopia where a company could train a model on work for hire content and then forever churn out content that they assert ownership of. I don't want the suppression of ideas caused by others asserting that because they had an idea, they own it and can dictate who gets to use it.
I also do not wish for another reign of terror.
I don't think violence will make the world better, and I don't think disaffected chique will either. I advocate identifying problems, suggesting solutions to the problems and working with people to reach consensus to apply those solutions. I assume that humans are fundamentally good and in the absence of religion can generally be reasoned with. Even those who do things you disagree with probably are doing what they think is best.
I may be wrong about the goodness of humanity, but it does not matter, If it exists it's worth working with. If it does not exist, it is not worth saving. I choose to assume that it exists on the chance that it might.
Nah, your writing was perfectly fine and something a native speaker would write also. The poster is just seeing false tells.
My use of it took the form of
A statement on how a guillotine kills people when they are powerless.
The negation then, in the first part compares that to the connotation of the previous post of an underdog battling those in power, and rejects it as inconsistent and the negation provides an alternative framing that is consistent with the action of killing a person who can no longer harm you.
Both sides of the negation make a point.
This is obviously much more common in a dialogue than a monologue, because the first part is used to reference words of the other party. In a monologue, that other party is the past self of the speaker, it suggests a change in position. I think models end up using as a short hand for realisation.
Are there any good collections of negation usage in AI with the surrounding paragraphs? I'd be interested to see what percentage of them are an expression of self realisation.
I have seen no research to that effect.
>and maximally convey meaning
Nobody knows how to measure that
They are trained to complete sequences, then they are trained to engage in conversations, produce what people prefer (with a fairly crude measure of preference, hence the sycophancy). Reasoning models are trained to produce what an observer model think will give you the right answer, the observer model simultaneously learns the likelihood of producing the right answer.
All these things train to improve a property that can be measured at training time. You could build a model to estimate engagement, but I have not seen any evidence that shipping LLMs have used a measure like this.
I can't even imagine how you could tell if a measure of meaning was accurate or not, let alone how you could produce such a measure. You could try to measure information density, but that would also include noise.
Also, there is the issue of human language taking some 'tells' because they are exposed to LLM output a lot.
I'm still grumpy that LLMs made it nearly impossible to use the words 'delve' or em-dashes without getting called out as an LLM.