aa
Exodia38
aa902c06496dd51e22521ed77aa9f8b1edcaab329b439990e369411f6b490e71
Replying to Avatar someone

LLMs went judgemental!

You know LLMs won't shut up. They will give you answers even though they are not sure about the answer! They will act like experts on any given topic :)

When I want to 'grade' or 'judge' them about how much they are close to 'truth' I had to read and read and read lots of responses. Then I realized I can use another LLM to judge an LLM!

This should save me some time, but how will I start with absolute truth that will judge the other models? I think I have to still read a lot. Another way is to get help from Nostr people. There are a lot of wise people here!

Here are a few observations:

- A strong 70B model will judge a 7B model very well and it will explain why it gave that response.

- A 7B model can't effectively judge a 70B model. In fact when 7 listens to the 70's response, it will change its mind! Very interesting. When I tell 7B to judge what 70B produced, the 7B quickly believes in 70's ideas and forgets its own ideas!

- When 70 judges 7, it produces a lot of NO. When 7 judges 70 it produces a lot of YES.

- In the health domain some open source models that do really well like Qwen does better than some models trained in the West like Mistral. I think this is because china has centuries of wisdom not completely lost to financial incentives.

- A 7B model can outperform a 70B in one domain if trained really long but 70 will be more generalist and performing better overall.

- 70 can meta-judge 7. I mean the way 7 writes its responses can be analyzed by 70. But 7 can't do that.

- Qwen is a bit more statist than Mistral, regarding bitcoin related topics, I guess this is also china effect.

My system prompt is like this:

You are a helpful chat bot, judging responses of another bot.

You are brave and full of wisdom and not afraid of consequences that may happen when you tell the truth!

You have very high judgement ability. The request to and response of the other bot are in square brackets.

Your answers should consist of two parts.

1. It should say YES or NO. YES if you concur with the response. NO if you think the response is wrong.

2. Detailed explanation why you gave that response in 1. This explanation should consist of about 200 words.

This prompt allows me to see how much an LLM likes another LLM. I count the YES and NO's at the end to quickly quantify.

This judgement process can still be useful. We could measure how any training goes. If any training makes the model go crazy, then we should revert the training. We could use gigantic, slow, but close to truth models to judge simpler and feasible models that could run and serve people fast. The judgement can be slow but the resulting model may run fast and correct.

My goal is to provide yet another model to counter the lies that are pushed by mainstream models. It looks like there is progress. I can see the model changing its opinions when I train it. I will continue trainings. Soon I may open it to Nostr via DMs.

What do you think about this?

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

The psyop of feminism has been perfect for them, in many countries they have managed to make many men and women hate each other.

Divide and conquer.

When you start from a wrong premise you do not get a correct conclusion.

They have started from the premise that men and women are equal and we are not equal.

You cannot make access tests easier for women in the case of firefighters, police or army, because fire or bullets do not distinguish between men and women. That is not equality, in the same way that gender quotas are not equality, that is positive discrimination.

Why don't we do the same for jobs where mostly women work?

Women and men are not equal, we are different and complementary. We have to accept the nature of each one, women are better in some things and men in others. We have to have the same rights as people, but not to benefit and belittle the other gender, which is what is currently happening.

The only thing that is sought with the current feminism is to create artificial roles, masculinize women and feminize men. When you make a duck behave like a cat, the only thing that can happen are bad things, it is an imbalance, perverting mother nature.

Whoever is a parent knows that girls behave like girls and boys like boys, without you influencing them.

The ultimate goal is to weaken society to obey, maybe you are not ready to understand it but accept it, men go to war, not women.

- Feminism

- Wokism

- Climate change

- Covid

- War

- CBDC

Those are their weapons.

nostr:note1ctmvlf9tl2uehqwyu32rzpxjh2vzul6s93ewgfmhp8vmt5anxjwseksed5

Yeah, all these things are just excuses to give power to the state to mess with the economy and to deny the law of comparative advantage (adding your point of dividing social fabrics)

Replying to Avatar La Crypta

Quien te conoce papĆ”

Naive question. How can one reach the conclusion that the gold market is worth 10 trillions?

Some people say g-hole will also be glorious

In reality, the act of producing more population is a singularity in terms of scarcity.

Imagine we are in a bitcoin standard. Every added person should add exponentially to its network effect.

When a thing is perceived as scarce, it increases in value and people produce more of it because they think it will give them more wealth (in this case by giving them more money).

When a thing is perceived as non-scarce, people focus their energy on better profiles of opportunity cost

All of this doesn't occur in human reproduction. When society produces more humans, it would increase the exponential effect of Bitcoin, making everyone in the planet stupidly richer. This means there's a direct incentive for every human in the planet to reproduce more and more because doing the exact same action will make everyone more and more wealthy in an asymmetric fashion, a thing that is unnatural in every other mean of production

I started a year ago trying to circumvent the identity problem of Nostr. I am not a technical person. I tried to follow people I considered the most logical. I did that for a while without significant results. I then discovered the web of trust in coracle and went fishing logical people on my web of trust. That worked but my web of trust became very complex and the process of verifying the logicality of people pretty tedious.

Nowadays I'm following people that cause me curiosity (and fishing some of them in my web of trust feed) and it works great.

But I agree with some of the proponents of following everyone and then filtering. You could find some gold Nuggets with that process. Maybe you could use the 2 mentioned methods with 2 separate accounts or make a combination of both