Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/694231e4-2244-8012-83ef-e82fe0c756eb
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== ### ==== * FACT: Ăhe vĂ”i kahe globaalmudeli dominantsus tĂ€hendab, et sama optimeerimisfunktsioon (ohutus, risk, stiil) muutub de facto âmĂ”tte standardiksâ. * INFERENCE: Monoliit tekitab ĂŒhe suure rikkevektori: kui filter vĂ”i treeningkallutus on vale, skaleerub vale kĂ”igile. * HYPOTHESIS: Mudelite federatsioon + vastastikune kriitika annab âepisteemilise redundantsiâ: erinevad priorâid, erinevad pimedad nurgad, rohkem signaali. ===== - FACT: âMitme mudeli olemasoluâ ĂŒksi ei taga mitmekesisust: kui kĂ”ik mudelid treenitakse samast korpusest ja samade guardrailâidega, on see vaid kosmeetiline. ===== * INFERENCE: Reaalne federatsioon vajab: 1. heterogeenset treeningallikate spektrit, 2. erinevaid eesmĂ€rkfunktsioone (nt ĂŒks mudel optimeerib konservatiivsele tĂ”endusstandardile, teine narratiivsele katvusele), 3. ristsihitust (cross-exam) protokolli: mudel A peab suutma kĂŒsida mudel B-lt âmis eeldus sul siin on?â ja vastupidi. ===== Riskid ===== * FACT: Mudelite âkĂ”lakodaâ: nad vĂ”ivad ĂŒksteist kinnitada sama vea ĂŒmber, kui testid pole sĂ”ltumatud. * INFERENCE: âAdversarial modelâ: ĂŒks mudel vĂ”ib muutuda manipuleerivaks vĂ”i âpropaganda-eksperdiksâ, kui ta on valesti hÀÀlestatud. KontrollmÔÔdikud # Disagreement utility: kas erimeelsus suurendab tĂ”endusstandardit vĂ”i lihtsalt tekitab mĂŒra. # Attribution trace: kas meta-sĂŒsteem logib, milline mudel millise vĂ€ite tĂ”i. # Consensus under evidence: kui lisandub primaarallikas, kas mudelid konvergeeruvad. # Routing integrity: kas kasutaja saab teada, milline mudel vastas (audititavus).
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)