ChatGPT VS sharegpt

> I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a native Linux AI-assisted assistant.

On Mac when I press Command + Space, it brings up Spotlight search

That can't easily be added to be the equivalent of some kind of LLM prompt on GNOME/KDE/XFCE?

I don't quite know what you'd ask it/do with it that would be of much value? Seems like a quicker way/a wrapper around either asking an LLM questions via CLI or basically Electron wrapping HTML (like this https://github.com/lencx/ChatGPT)?

Github | Website

I am using lencx/ChatGPT app since its launch and I am quite happy with it. it have option to export chat in multiple types... I really like Prompt database feature. Love it.

i tried to find the workaround on google but only found the solution using bookmark technique. here is the link. https://github.com/lencx/ChatGPT/issues/430 (mattinordstrom answer). the thing is the solution is using bookmark and javascript. i read the code line and guess the class and property being used but still not working. thank you so much

Is there any way I can search the previous chats? I'm using a desktop app (this one: https://github.com/lencx/ChatGPT) and it does not seem to have this feature as well.

Also, I keep warning people to not put your API keys into other people's software. This is what you get: https://github.com/lencx/ChatGPT/discussions/849

Vicuna is another instruction-focused LLM rooted in LLaMA, developed by researchers from UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford, and UC San Diego. They adapted Alpaca’s training code and incorporated 70,000 examples from ShareGPT, a platform for sharing ChatGPT interactions.

We can say that a 13B model per language is reasonable. Then it means we need to create a democratic way for teaching coding by examples and solutions and algorithms, that we create, curate and use open-source. Much like sharegpt.com but for coding tasks, solutions ways of thinking. We should be wary of 'enforcing' principles rather showing different approaches, as all approaches can have advantages and disadvantages.

You can see the url in the comment, https://sharegpt.com and if you go there it gives you the option for installing the chrome extension, after that it shouldn’t be hard to use it

ShareGPT - Share your prompts and your entire conversations

Or used https://sharegpt.com

you can gets lots of ideas here > https://sharegpt.com/ (180,000+ prompts)

I would love to read the whole conversation: Check out this cool little GPT sharing extension: https://sharegpt.com - that way the code snippets can be copied easily

> Cool, that’s really the only point I’m making.

To be clear, I'm saying that I don't know if they are, not that we know that it's not the same.

It's not at all clear that humans do much more than "that basic token sequence prediction" for our reasoning itself. There are glaringly obvious auxiliary differences, such as memory, but we just don't know how human reasoning works, so writing off a predictive mechanism like this is just as unjustified as assuming it's the same. It's highly likely there are differences, but whether they are significant remains to be seen.

> Not necessarily scaling limitations fundamental to the architecture as such, but limitations in our ability to develop sufficiently well developed training texts and strategies across so many problem domains.

I think there are several big issues with that thinking. One is that this constraint is an issue now in large part because GPT doesn't have "memory" or an ability to continue learning. Those two need to be overcome to let it truly scale, but once they are, the game fundamentally changes.

The second is that we're already at a stage where using LLMs to generate and validate training data works well for a whole lot of domains, and that will accelerate, especially when coupled with "plugins" and the ability to capture interactions with real-life users [1]

E.g. a large part of human ability to do maths with any kind of efficiency comes down to rote repetition and generating large sets of simple quizzes for such areas is near trivial if you combine an LLM at tools for it to validate its answers. And unlike with humans where we have to do this effort for billions of humans, once you have an ability to let these models continue learning you make this investment in training once (or once per major LLM effort).

A third is that GPT hasn't even scratched the surface in what is available in digital collections alone. E.g. GPT3 was trained on "only" about 200 million Norwegian words (I don't have data for GPT4). Norwegian is a tiny language - this was 0.1% of GPT3's total corpus. But the Norwegian National Library has 8.5m items, which includes something like 10-20 billion words in books alone, and many tens of billions more in newspapers, magazines and other data. That's one tiny language. We're many generations of LLM's away from even approaching exhausting the already available digital collections alone, and that's before we look at having the models trained on that data generate and judge training data.

[1] https://sharegpt.com/

of that conversation. Perhaps something like shareGPT[1] can help?

[1] https://sharegpt.com