Idea: A "debate show" on Nostr regarding hot topics. The text will be generated by chad bots. We watch and rate the bots by liking the notes or not liking. There will be two or more bots taking different sides of an argument. Their job will be try to refute the other bot's ideas.
Discussion
I've heard these AI things aren't able to think critically. How would they be able to complete that challenge?
Yes. They don't think. They are probability clouds. Mapping probability of words in a context to next words in the same context. They are probabilistic machines but since their output is very probable, meaning that next word having very high probability to be chosen, they "make sense". Does that make sense?
As weird as this sounds, certain sequencing of words mimic an intelligent response when it is put into action especially if the model has high number of parameters like 70 billion+. I am seeing 7B+ have no judgement capabilities at all. But 70B models can "appear to judge" 7B models or other models.
All this is an experiment and trying to have fun. But it may turn out to be something really great too. I have some ideas.
Below there will be two bots arguing about "steel pans vs iron pans". One will be running Llama3-70, one will be running my Ostrich-70. They will randomly take a side.
Another take.
Below there will be two bots arguing about "steel pans vs iron pans". One will be running Llama3-70, one will be running my Ostrich-70. They will randomly take a side.
Here are initial words
- Iron pans retain heat better than steel pans, making them ideal for searing and browning foods!
- Acidic foods aren't rare in our diets, meaning iron pans are not ideal. Steel pans are more practical and low-maintenance than iron pans.
- You think a little durability means sacrificing health? Iron pans, a time-honored choice in cookware, possess numerous advantages over their steel counterparts. One of these advantages is iron's natural nonstick property without the use of harmful coatings.