Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this. Happy Halloween, fellow sneerers!)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 23 hours ago* (2 children)

Can you answer a question about RAG for me? My understanding is based entirely on this diagram from Wikipedia

If RAG takes into account vector similarity between query and reference material, do you need an LLM to regurgitate the found best vectors back to you? Could you get back a list of documents that best matched your query, or are the results in an inscrutable LLM-internal representation that need to be transformered back into readable text?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 22 hours ago* (1 child)

    You can have a system that just gives you a relevance-sorted list, or a system that then ingests the chunks of those documents that are most relevant and gives a human readable summary in addition to the list.

    The indexing step requires a lot of processing, by which you chunk reference documents into couple hundred word chunks and cook each of those chunks into a high dimensional embedding vector. Once you have done that and saved the database of vectors, you can put in your query, embed it, check its dot product against all the other embedding vectors, and get your ranked list (potentially quite fast) without need to produce text out the other end.

    Making those embedding vectors works much faster on a GPU rather than a CPU, but can be done on either. Since I have one system set up to ingest a bunch of web documents and embed them and search them, I have that system already set up using the GPU to go faster, so there's no real disadvantage to having it also set up to spit out a small natural language summary using a shitty tiny local LLM to go along with the list. When running it on local files, you can totally ingest the local document stash slowly on even just a CPU and just store that and run the semantic search on CPU, no LLM required.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 22 hours ago*

    Thanks! Well generating the summary would have the downside (for me), that I would have to look at it.

    But the semantic search bit was the one thing I felt was an actual new capability. I'm trying to imagine what if Google tried to pick this as their new moat (a better but resource-intensive way to search, scaling benefits if you establish yourself as the Internet's main vector store, people might actually pay for queries...), but no they joined the team that wants so shove slop down everybody's eyeballs.

  • source
  • parent