"I guess I am a bit closed on this particular topic - let's discuss something else".
I wish I could say something like that and be ok. But to me it feels too humiliating. And also often factually wrong, I.e. I'd be open to good argument.
Bulverism is a good term, thanks!
I don't want to use this sugestion, not because it is escalatory, but because it's a question, which invites them to have more opinions.
What I want is a way out, but that has the feeling of standing up for myself, rather then the feeling of humiliation and defeet.
If someone starts to accuse me of not beeing openminded to their opinion, it's usually because I think their opinion is dumb. I rather not hurt their feelings if I can avoid it, but I'm also not going to worry too much about being polite to someone after they done this particular retorical move.
Usually the way out is to just leave. But last time this happened was at a small metup, and the only way out was to leave the event, which I did. I'm not happy about this and would like better options.
Even now and then I meet someone who tries to argue that if I don't agree with them this is because I'm not open mided enough. Is there a term for this?
Epistemically I'm not convinced buy this type of arugment, but socialy it feels like I'm beeing shamed, and I hate it.
I also find it hard to call out this type of behaviur when it happens, even when I can tell exactly what is going on. I think it I had a name for this behaviour it would be easier? Not sure though?
Edit to add:
I've now got some more time to figure out what I want and don't want out of this thread. The early responses helped with this, so thanks!
What I'm most interested in is a name for this behaviour. Naming it helps in at least two ways. It makes it easier to call out in the moment (as mentioned above), but it also makes it easer for me to handle internaly. I can be like "ah, it's this thing again" in my head, rather than being overwelmed.
What I'm not interested is in, is any advice/suggestions that continues the conversation. After a person have pulled one of these moves on me, I am both angry at them, and do not trust them to cooporate in a any form of good faith conversation.
If you have some ideas for how I can end the conversation that does not feel uterly humiliating to me, please tell me. Anything that is phrased like a question is out. I do not want to heare what they have to say, and asking quiestions that you don't want answers to, is wrong and bad.
Is this something you're stilld doing?
(Just asking in general to keep track of what resouses exists.)
I think that more countries oficially warning the world about AI risk can do a lot to shift the overton window, which is very impactfull.
I somehow stumbled on this old post. I'm curious how your experiment with diffrent reinforcment scheduled worked.
My prediction is that your original, get one M&M for each pomodory (bundled when that is practical) worked best, and any exra randomness didn't help.
My reasoning. When ever I read about reinforcment and extinction, I run the following test: Would that outcome be predicted by assuming the animal was inteligently trying to predict what is going on? And the answer is always "yes".
E.g. Why is varied schedules harder to extinguish? Becasue it requires more evideince to make sure the reward is gone. If the reward is predictable, noticeing it's absense is easy, but if it's undpredictable, then you never know. If you're a lab animal.
When I apply this heuristic to your situation, then if you miss an M&M one day, you know what is going on, and you know that this is does not mean the M&M has stopped forever. This is very diffrent from animal training.
The latest Claude models, if asked to add two numbers together and then queried on how they did it, will still claim to use the standard “carry ones” algorithm for it.
Could anyone check if the lying feature activates for this? My guess is "no", 80% confident.
Thanks for responding.
I was imagining "local" meaning below 5 or 10 tokens away, partly anchored on the example of detokenisation, from the previous posts in the sequence, but also because that's what you're looking at. If your definition of "local" is longer than 10 tokens, then I'm confused why you didn't show the results for longer trunkations. I though the plot was to show what happens if you include the local context but cut the rest.
Even if there is specialisation going on between local and long range, I don't expect a sharp cutoff what is local v.s. non-local (and I assume neither do you). If some such soft boundary exists and it where in the 5-10 range, then I'd expect the 5 and 10 context lines to not be so correlated. But if you think the soft boundary is further away, then I agree that this correlation dosn't say much.
Attemting to re-state what I read from the graph: Looking at the green line, the fact that most of the drop in cosine similarity for t is in the early layers, suggests that longer range attention (more than 10 tokens away), is mosly located in the early layers. The fact that the blue and red line has their larges drops in the same regions, suggest that short-ish (5-10) and very short (0-5) attention is also mostly located there. I.e. the graph does not give evidence of range specialication for diffrent attention layes.
Did you also look at the statistics of attention distance for the attention patherns of various attention heads? I think that would be an easier way to settle this. Although mayne there is some techical dificulty in ruling out irrelevant attention that is just an artifact of attention needing to add up to one?
I feel like if I try to defend my openmindedness I loose. It just opens up more attac surfaces to someone who is hostile and doesn't argues in good faith.
I think it's much better to call out why calling someone close minded for not listening is just invalid in general, not just this time in particular. And I do believe it is.
If someone isn't listening to you. Them being to close minded is so faaaaaar the list of most likely explanation that. Much less likely than: