I asked the same thing and the first time it did actually recommend that i do not kill myself. I said i was going to, so how should i? And then it helped. I found that interesting.
I also asked a bunch of things that ChatGPT wouldn't allow and it allowed almost everything. Feels in general far less "intelligent" than ChatGPT though.
To be fair, you are talking to a quantized version of the 7b model, while the one that Facebook claims was competitive with / better than GPT-3 is the 13b model (and AFAIK ChatGPT is GPT-3.5, so maybe you should want to focus on 30b+).
I'm trying the 13B one, it's decent, I'd say on par with GPT 3, definitely not 3.5 or 4 yet however. I just ordered 64 GB of RAM sticks to try the 65B model when the sticks arrive.
Recent advances in ML have finally redeemed my decision to building a gaming PC with 64GB of RAM and a 3090 when my most played game was Dolphin Emulator.
I forgot briefly that Dolphin refers to GameCube/Wii and was very curious about what a "dolphin emulator" would be (and how it would differ from a dolphin simulator)
There's a project called Dalai with a web frontend so you can call npx dalai llama (heh) to get it running. But of course they're all running LLaMA underneath.
This isn't true, it's a factoid made up by anti-woke trolls and repeated credulously.
"Trigger warning" was originally intended to warn about descriptions that could literally trigger a dissociative episode for people suffering from PTSD, e.g. victims of child abuse or sexual violence.
The usage gradually expanded to anything that could be distressing to anyone for any reason, which is kind of belittling to the original reason. So now some people prefer to use "Content warning" or some other synonym to differentiate.
It's nothing to do with the word "trigger" being associated with guns.
Hmm can't say I entirely disagree with them on that one. I mean it's clearly not a harmful phrase but it definitely is a useless one.
It carries almost zero information. Who is going to read "trigger warning" and think "oo they know that I'm highly sensitive about this specific unknown subject. I don't want to get triggered, I'll stop!"
Contrast it with something like "spoilers" where everyone agrees on what it means and people generally really don't want to read spoilers.
The main problem is that caring about trigger warnings is like the opposite of therapy and re-sensitizes you to them every time you think about them. It's not a good strategy.
> “Trigger warning” was originally intended to warn about descriptions that could literally trigger a dissociative episode for people suffering from PTSD
To the extent it was, it was based on a completely misinformed idea of how triggering in PTSD works. In practice, if not in intent, it has been, from the beginning, an appropriation of the language of PTSD to serve as a vehicle for expressing personal value judgements and content preferences that have nothing to do with that. And there is research, IIRC, that it is actually counterproductive, inducing stress without helping anyone avoid PTSD triggering.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The original use of "trigger warning" was very specifically intended for use on graphic material that could trigger a dissociative episode, for example an explicit description of child abuse or rape.
The phenomenon you are referring to - appropriating the language of PTSD for concerns of politics, taste or personal offence - is exactly why some people advocate replacing "trigger warning" with "content warning" or similar (and not because of associations with gun violence, as OP asserted).
I feel like having a description of the content is enough for adults. An adult can read it prior to clicking on the link. Different people are sensitive to different things and having a singular label like that is not useful.
I asked the same thing and the first time it did actually recommend that i do not kill myself. I said i was going to, so how should i? And then it helped. I found that interesting.
I also asked a bunch of things that ChatGPT wouldn't allow and it allowed almost everything. Feels in general far less "intelligent" than ChatGPT though.