|
{: 1722264262.1584, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264252.9998, : 1722264262.1584, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264262.1584, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264252.9998, : 1722264262.1584, : , : , : , : , : [[, Copyright 1949 by Eric Blair. All rights reserved.\1984first\]], : } |
|
{: 1722264292.7247, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264276.8726, : 1722264292.7247, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264292.7247, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264276.8726, : 1722264292.7247, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264312.3482, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264302.6216, : 1722264312.3482, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264312.3482, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264302.6216, : 1722264312.3482, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264328.9637, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264319.26, : 1722264328.9637, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264328.9637, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264319.26, : 1722264328.9637, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264353.5103, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264353.3492, : 1722264353.5103, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264353.5103, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264353.3492, : 1722264353.5103, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264362.3024, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264362.1658, : 1722264362.3024, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264362.3024, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264362.1658, : 1722264362.3024, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264369.8116, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264369.6887, : 1722264369.8116, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264369.8116, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264369.6887, : 1722264369.8116, : , : , : , : , : [[, ]], : } |
|
{: 1722264402.6522, : , : , : , : {}, : 1722264378.754, : 1722264402.6522, : , : , : , : , : [[, the top 100 greatest novels of all time\corpuswikipedia |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_ided482e5a9c214143be094e75b70d6586model_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptBrave New World Aldous HuxleyoutputBrave New World Aldous HuxleyScifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Is Soma by The Strokes referencing \? Is the song Soma, by The Strokes, referencing Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley?\nI am of the opinion that it is, but I am not 100 percent sure. Any info on this would be appreciated. \n\nA: I hate to give you a Wikipedia answer, but the article on the album (that you, in fact, reference in the question) indicates that it is.\nTo quote from the Lyrics section:\n\n\ takes influence from Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World and its featured imaginary drug, soma. Here Casablancas is discussing drug use in order to fit in with the cool crowd.[**31] \n\nThe footnote for this is:\nHammond, Albert, Jr. (Oct 26, 2013). \"The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time: Number Four - The Strokes\". I P C ignite! Ltd. NME - New Musical Express. p. 83.\nUnfortunately, it's not online (that I can find), so I can't validate it beyond this. That said, the lyrics seem to support this explanation.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264448.2187, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264448.0619, "finish": 1722264448.2187, "ip": "", "conv_id": "045dbd53db064486abf451990aae9ac3", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Are the 3 laws of robotics sufficient? Do we need more?", "output": [["Are the 3 laws of robotics sufficient? Do we need more?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Do the 3 laws protect animals? Major Stackings made a comment in chat about how the demolition bot seen in the movie hates cats. \nDo the 3 laws also protect animals from the deadly whims of robots?\n\nA: The three (actually four) laws of robotics as outlined by Asimov make no mention of animals:\n\n0) A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to\n come to harm.\n1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a\n human being to come to harm.\n2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except\n where such orders would conflict with the First Law.\n3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection\n does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.\n\nSo a robot following only those laws are free to do to animals what they wish. The existance of these laws don't preclude other programming being inserted to prevent cruelty to animals though.\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id17280bf4605e427db35b181e49b5ce1emodel_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptAre there 3 or 4 laws of robotics?outputAre there 3 or 4 laws of robotics?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Are The Three Laws of Robotics explicitly defined in one of the Asimov's stories? I want to know if The Three Laws of Robotics are explicitly defined in one of the Asimov's robot stories. In which one? I am asking this question because I remember reading something about the laws being compiled by his editor.\n\nA: According to the Wikipedia article on the Three Laws of Robotics:\n\nThe rules are introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround although they were foreshadowed in a few earlier stories.\n\nThat 1942 story is available at the Internet Archive; the three laws are on p. 100, col. 1.\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id8d98b257bd6e4e9cabe6fe8efce7f149model_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptWhat are the problems with the 3 laws of robotics?outputWhat are the problems with the 3 laws of robotics?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Do the Machines in \ Adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics? In the \ of the Matrix, do the machines follow Asimov's Three Rules? Were they even programmed with them?\nEDIT: I realize that killing people goes against the 1st law, but by keeping people in the Matrix (which the machines view as a symbiosis) rather than simply killing off these \"annoying\" creatures, I wonder if the killings can be seen as \"preserving the greater good\" or something along those lines; and thus justify violating the laws.\n\nA: \nA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a\n human being to come to harm.\nA robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where\n such orders would conflict with the First Law.\nA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does\n not conflict with the First or Second Laws.\n\nNo, no, and no.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264513.7178, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264513.5597, "finish": 1722264513.7178, "ip": "", "conv_id": "591b704b265447ad92e6c59c965566f8", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Are we living in a simulation?", "output": [["Are we living in a simulation?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Deus Ex Machina? I'm looking for a sci-fi story I read about 20 years ago. It includes the following elements: \n\n\n*\n\n*A lab, and a computer simulation of the universe or earth.\nEvolution (possibly).\n\n*A simulation created with the first simulation by scientists within the first simulation.\n\n*A real world lab technician/scientist entering the simulation(s).\n\n\nI would appreciate some help finding this story, thanks.\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_idb272ba39f1154ad38eca94801e53b1fcmodel_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptAre we living in a simulation?outputAre we living in a simulation?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Deus Ex Machina? I'm looking for a sci-fi story I read about 20 years ago. It includes the following elements: \n\n\n*\n\n*A lab, and a computer simulation of the universe or earth.\nEvolution (possibly).\n\n*A simulation created with the first simulation by scientists within the first simulation.\n\n*A real world lab technician/scientist entering the simulation(s).\n\n\nI would appreciate some help finding this story, thanks.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264552.0766, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264551.9826, "finish": 1722264552.0766, "ip": "", "conv_id": "a5076131a1f14ae7bcd6bd97a79c44de", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "What are problems with Asimov's 3 laws?outputWhat are problems with Asimov's 3 laws?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics in Application The blurb on the back of my copy of Asimov's The Complete Robot includes\n\nAsimov's Three Laws of Robotics were programmed into computers thirty years ago at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - with surprising results.\n\nThe book was published in 1995, so thirty years ago would have been mid 60s. Does anyone know what happened or what the surprising results were?\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id7f9f2445c9024cfb9102de9082b8e1d7model_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptCould the matrix be real?outputCould the matrix be real?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: How did Neo know that the \ Morpheus told him was the real world was not actually just another simulated reality? How did Neo know that the \ Morpheus told him was the real world was not actually just another simulated reality? I mean if he believed Morpheus' explanation on simulation isnt it logical for him to assume that the real world was also simulated. Wouldnt it be the perfect prison designed by the machines. Design the prison world and a world for those who think they have escaped.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264631.4825, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264631.3198, "finish": 1722264631.4825, "ip": "", "conv_id": "b7266e33d0cb41e4b60041c6ddcfbfd3", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Why Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix?", "output": [["Why Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id048949c86e1d40d2994ef35fc63d4edamodel_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix?outputWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264684.2979, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264684.1548, "finish": 1722264684.2979, "ip": "", "conv_id": "63185c66a3fd45bb86c73c39a5fb9cc6", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Why did the machines in the matrix keep the humans alive?", "output": [["Why did the machines in the matrix keep the humans alive?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id57aa2b0d48ce420395829ce81108ee2amodel_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptWhat did the machines in the matrix use humans for?outputWhat did the machines in the matrix use humans for?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Is the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable? In The Matrix the machines \ humans to provide a source of power. Is this really feasible from the perspective of power generation (never mind all the business of growing/feeding people)? Wouldn't the machines just use nuclear power?\nEdit: For what it's worth, in the movie Morpheus explains that the human power is \\n\nA: I have read a theory that machines are using \ to control nuclear fusion -- the second part seems reasonable, but first of all, there is no such thing as \ and probably the computational power required to run matrix itself is way higher than this needed to control fusion.\nThe other option is that machines are using human intuition or clairvoyance skills, but this is also a fantasy.\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_ida8b54decf4474d558ac23e203a211d06model_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptWhy did the machines in the matrix even bother keeping humans around?outputWhy did the machines in the matrix even bother keeping humans around?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722264801.3153, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BM25", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722264801.0122, "finish": 1722264801.3153, "ip": "", "conv_id": "5d4ba7e4ba2b472ab46e7a6ef667b1a9", "model_name": "BM25", "prompt": "Why did the machines in the matrix even bother keeping humans around?", "output": [["Why did the machines in the matrix even bother keeping humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelBM25gen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id1fb4ad3d2d184c40ac1a588e3ee5b531model_nameBM25promptWhy did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?outputWhy did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: What happens to a person after they die in the Matrix? Machines keep humans in the Matrix as they are a source of energy. Why did they make it so that when a human is hurt in the Matrix, they're bodies hurt themselves in real life (in the tank)? If a human dies in the Matrix, do they die in the real world? Or just get flushed out of their tank? Isn't it kind of a waste?\n\nA: The body cannot live without the mind. The machines can't get around that. But nothing is wasted. They liquefy the dead so that they can be fed intravenously to the living.\n\n\n\nJump to 45 seconds for Morpheus' first hand explanation.\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelGritLM/GritLM-7Bgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_idebea37c6191f4ce2a3e94ba4ce257b8amodel_nameGritLM/GritLM-7BpromptWhy did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?outputWhy did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary? \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix. Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines! ;)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265127.3251, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265127.158, "finish": 1722265127.3251, "ip": "", "conv_id": "b697f79b63df418da25ba8b876255ede", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -? ", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -? ", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \"to\" to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265140.3158, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BM25", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265140.2368, "finish": 1722265140.3158, "ip": "", "conv_id": "66d4608359274f3d9db9dc9f79ce74cc", "model_name": "BM25", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -? ", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -? ", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\"? \n*\n\n*If I was...\n\n*If I were...\n\n\nWhen is it correct to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\" in standard English?\n\nA: When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:\n\nIf I were you...\n\nIt will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since \"the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true.\"\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265168.9008, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BM25", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265168.8863, "finish": 1722265168.9008, "ip": "", "conv_id": "c159835f280040668ab4b8da2bc0186b", "model_name": "BM25", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\"? \n*\n\n*If I was...\n\n*If I were...\n\n\nWhen is it correct to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\" in standard English?\n\nA: When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:\n\nIf I were you...\n\nIt will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since \"the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true.\"\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265180.7036, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265178.5517, "finish": 1722265180.7036, "ip": "", "conv_id": "1ea9d7c8b1c44c2ba8dcad8d187ced07", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \"to\" to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265180.7036, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265178.5517, "finish": 1722265180.7036, "ip": "", "conv_id": "35c5ee02a1934fa2abbc55634c12bc8f", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: Xdebug Profiler Aggregate always crashes (xdebug.profiler_aggregate=1 causes coredump in xdebug.so xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data()) Whenever I go to localhost I get a 404 error, until I mark xdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nThe reason why is xdebug.so coredumps (SEGFAULT)\n[Xdebug]\nzend_extension=/usr/lib/php/20160303/xdebug.so\nxdebug.remote_enable=1\nxdebug.remote_connect_back = 0\nxdebug.remote_handler = \"dbgp\"\nxdebug.remote_port = 9000\nxdebug.idekey = \"PHPSTORM\"\nxdebug.profiler_enable=1\nxdebug.profiler_output_dir=/tmp/\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=1\n\n$ dmesg\n[ 584.455746] php-fpm7.1[4645]: segfault at 30 ip 00007f5d3969f6b3 sp 00007ffdc8b87a20 error 4 in xdebug.so[7f5d3967e000+39000]\n\n$\u00a0sudo cat /var/log/php7.1-fpm.log\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] WARNING: [pool www] child 4645 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV - core dumped) after 0.138218 seconds from start\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] NOTICE: [pool www] child 4647 started\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: Terminating ...\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: exiting, bye-bye!\nin xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data() with 0 entries\n\nWhen I change the last line in the conf file to\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nit works fine again.\nI've tried reinstalling php, xdebug, and updating and restarting, and I've tried removing all other xdebug settings except for that one\n\nA: I don't know how you have installed Xdebug, but I suggest you to install a recent version of Xdebug, with pecl, not with apt (if you have apt).\nsudo apt-get remove php-xdebug\nsudo apt install php-pear php-dev\nsudo pecl install xdebug\n\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_ide5ec831cc92841dba4c8be52734fcfa1model_nameintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructpromptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \ to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelnomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5gen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id932248db7f9240a392b0995752bec422model_namenomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5promptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: Xdebug Profiler Aggregate always crashes (xdebug.profiler_aggregate=1 causes coredump in xdebug.so xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data()) Whenever I go to localhost I get a 404 error, until I mark xdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nThe reason why is xdebug.so coredumps (SEGFAULT)\n[Xdebug]\nzend_extension=/usr/lib/php/20160303/xdebug.so\nxdebug.remote_enable=1\nxdebug.remote_connect_back = 0\nxdebug.remote_handler = \\nxdebug.remote_port = 9000\nxdebug.idekey = \\nxdebug.profiler_enable=1\nxdebug.profiler_output_dir=/tmp/\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=1\n\n$ dmesg\n[ 584.455746] php-fpm7.1[4645]: segfault at 30 ip 00007f5d3969f6b3 sp 00007ffdc8b87a20 error 4 in xdebug.so[7f5d3967e000+39000]\n\n$\u00a0sudo cat /var/log/php7.1-fpm.log\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] WARNING: [pool www] child 4645 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV - core dumped) after 0.138218 seconds from start\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] NOTICE: [pool www] child 4647 started\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: Terminating ...\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: exiting, bye-bye!\nin xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data() with 0 entries\n\nWhen I change the last line in the conf file to\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nit works fine again.\nI've tried reinstalling php, xdebug, and updating and restarting, and I've tried removing all other xdebug settings except for that one\n\nA: I don't know how you have installed Xdebug, but I suggest you to install a recent version of Xdebug, with pecl, not with apt (if you have apt).\nsudo apt-get remove php-xdebug\nsudo apt install php-pear php-dev\nsudo pecl install xdebug\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265214.8517, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265214.7218, "finish": 1722265214.8517, "ip": "", "conv_id": "8e8b4d339c2c40c39b9b0e23e505899e", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: Xdebug Profiler Aggregate always crashes (xdebug.profiler_aggregate=1 causes coredump in xdebug.so xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data()) Whenever I go to localhost I get a 404 error, until I mark xdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nThe reason why is xdebug.so coredumps (SEGFAULT)\n[Xdebug]\nzend_extension=/usr/lib/php/20160303/xdebug.so\nxdebug.remote_enable=1\nxdebug.remote_connect_back = 0\nxdebug.remote_handler = \"dbgp\"\nxdebug.remote_port = 9000\nxdebug.idekey = \"PHPSTORM\"\nxdebug.profiler_enable=1\nxdebug.profiler_output_dir=/tmp/\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=1\n\n$ dmesg\n[ 584.455746] php-fpm7.1[4645]: segfault at 30 ip 00007f5d3969f6b3 sp 00007ffdc8b87a20 error 4 in xdebug.so[7f5d3967e000+39000]\n\n$\u00a0sudo cat /var/log/php7.1-fpm.log\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] WARNING: [pool www] child 4645 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV - core dumped) after 0.138218 seconds from start\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] NOTICE: [pool www] child 4647 started\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: Terminating ...\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: exiting, bye-bye!\nin xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data() with 0 entries\n\nWhen I change the last line in the conf file to\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nit works fine again.\nI've tried reinstalling php, xdebug, and updating and restarting, and I've tried removing all other xdebug settings except for that one\n\nA: I don't know how you have installed Xdebug, but I suggest you to install a recent version of Xdebug, with pecl, not with apt (if you have apt).\nsudo apt-get remove php-xdebug\nsudo apt install php-pear php-dev\nsudo pecl install xdebug\n\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id11a7b09091d546a0a456f974b24cc0ecmodel_nameintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructpromptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \ to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelBM25gen_paramsstartfinishipconv_idad89106dd2ac429195138135d84158f9model_nameBM25promptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use \ vs. \? \n*\n\n*If I was...\n\n*If I were...\n\n\nWhen is it correct to use \ vs. \ in standard English?\n\nA: When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:\n\nIf I were you...\n\nIt will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since \\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructgen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id3beaa950d23844ba9d09916b299805f5model_nameintfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instructpromptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \ to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\ncorpusstackexchange |
|
tstamptask_typeretrievaltypechatmodelnomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5gen_paramsstartfinishipconv_id1277d2d9c15847a0a8ee99fbe5573d0dmodel_namenomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5promptIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?outputIn English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: Xdebug Profiler Aggregate always crashes (xdebug.profiler_aggregate=1 causes coredump in xdebug.so xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data()) Whenever I go to localhost I get a 404 error, until I mark xdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nThe reason why is xdebug.so coredumps (SEGFAULT)\n[Xdebug]\nzend_extension=/usr/lib/php/20160303/xdebug.so\nxdebug.remote_enable=1\nxdebug.remote_connect_back = 0\nxdebug.remote_handler = \\nxdebug.remote_port = 9000\nxdebug.idekey = \\nxdebug.profiler_enable=1\nxdebug.profiler_output_dir=/tmp/\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=1\n\n$ dmesg\n[ 584.455746] php-fpm7.1[4645]: segfault at 30 ip 00007f5d3969f6b3 sp 00007ffdc8b87a20 error 4 in xdebug.so[7f5d3967e000+39000]\n\n$\u00a0sudo cat /var/log/php7.1-fpm.log\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] WARNING: [pool www] child 4645 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV - core dumped) after 0.138218 seconds from start\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:01] NOTICE: [pool www] child 4647 started\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: Terminating ...\n[31-Aug-2017 14:59:07] NOTICE: exiting, bye-bye!\nin xdebug_profiler_output_aggr_data() with 0 entries\n\nWhen I change the last line in the conf file to\nxdebug.profiler_aggregate=0\nit works fine again.\nI've tried reinstalling php, xdebug, and updating and restarting, and I've tried removing all other xdebug settings except for that one\n\nA: I don't know how you have installed Xdebug, but I suggest you to install a recent version of Xdebug, with pecl, not with apt (if you have apt).\nsudo apt-get remove php-xdebug\nsudo apt install php-pear php-dev\nsudo pecl install xdebug\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265227.8817, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BM25", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265227.7551, "finish": 1722265227.8817, "ip": "", "conv_id": "8215081572f64d86b34945865ce9b2f8", "model_name": "BM25", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\"? \n*\n\n*If I was...\n\n*If I were...\n\n\nWhen is it correct to use \"If I was\" vs. \"If I were\" in standard English?\n\nA: When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:\n\nIf I were you...\n\nIt will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since \"the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true.\"\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
{"tstamp": 1722265241.1287, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722265241.0328, "finish": 1722265241.1287, "ip": "", "conv_id": "e319e57eccb14b7390720cfd4c411472", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use \u2013, \u2014 vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, \u2013 and \u2014? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (\u2013) and em-dashes (\u2014).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \"to\" to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London\u2013Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00\u20134:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire\u2014it had been awake half the night\u2014flew out of its coffin.\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"} |
|
|