︎
FAC3D            Exhibition     Conversation     Dataset      Colophon               NFT    Untitled_N Virtual       

FAC3D uses the language systems of GPT-2 to develop three different neural network identities. (Aahan Prakash, Skylar Ang, Mikhail Hilmi)




[ Extract from Open-AI ]

https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/


GPT-2 is a large transformer-based language model with 1.5 billion parameters, trained on a dataset of 8 million web pages. GPT-2 is trained with a simple objective: predict the next word, given all of the previous words within some text. The diversity of the dataset causes this simple goal to contain naturally occurring demonstrations of many tasks across diverse domains. GPT-2 is a direct scale-up of GPT, with more than 10X the parameters and trained on more than 10X the amount of data.

GPT-2 displays a broad set of capabilities, including the ability to generate conditional synthetic text samples of unprecedented quality, where we prime the model with an input and have it generate a lengthy continuation. In addition, GPT-2 outperforms other language models trained on specific domains (like Wikipedia, news, or books) without needing to use these domain-specific training datasets. On language tasks like question answering, reading comprehension, summarization, and translation, GPT-2 begins to learn these tasks from the raw text, using no task-specific training data. While scores on these downstream tasks are far from state-of-the-art, they suggest that the tasks can benefit from unsupervised techniques, given sufficient (unlabeled) data and compute.

We created a new dataset which emphasizes diversity of content, by scraping content from the Internet. In order to preserve document quality, we used only pages which have been curated/filtered by humans—specifically, we used outbound links from Reddit which received at least 3 karma. This can be thought of as a heuristic indicator for whether other users found the link interesting (whether educational or funny), leading to higher data quality than other similar datasets, such as CommonCrawl.

GPT-2 generates synthetic text samples in response to the model being primed with an arbitrary input. The model is chameleon-like—it adapts to the style and content of the conditioning text. This allows the user to generate realistic and coherent continuations about a topic of their choosing, as seen by the following select samples.


GPT-2 > GPT-3 introduced in May 2020
Third-generation language prediction model in the GPT-n series (and the successor to GPT-2) created by OpenAI.

Language Models are Few-Shot Learners






Aahan Prakash
 Model_name= GPT-2_124M
Steps= 1000
Trained Time,s= 00:00:00
Learning Rate= 6.0 x 10^-4
Length= 500,
Creativity = 0.7,
External Data Size= 5,766KB::



Tittle Author Pages Trained Time,s Model_Name Learning Rate
Dogma: A Novel Lars Lyers 208 00:01:34
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Exodus Lars Lyers 230 00:03:32
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Kingdom Come JG Ballard 492 00:04:21
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Loveless: The Minimum Dwelling and Its Discontents Martino Tattara and Pier Vittorio Aureli 426 00:04:38
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Presidential Debate 2020 Full Transcript Washington Transcript 20 00:00:54
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Spurious. Lars Iyers 132 00:01:34
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Double Helix James D. Watson 143 00:01:08
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Faces of Justice Sybille Bedford 198 00:01:01
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Mueller Report The Washington Post 255 00:02:37
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out Richard Feynman 224 00:02:21
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture Within and Against Capitalism Pier Vittorio Aurel 129 00:01:10
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir John Bolton 570 00:03:56
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
The Tracker: The True Story of Tom Brown Jr. Tom Brown 235 00:01:43
 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Transcript of the Second Presidential Debate 2016 Washington University 33 00:00:53 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4
Vice President Debate 2020 The Commission On Presidential Debate 15 00:00:34 117M
 6.0 x 10^-4


Prefix= “___”,
nsamples= 05,
Batch_size= 05,



Generated Text 01

The people whom Trump had brought over.
He was still in the stratosphere when I met with him in the Oval on April 25.
He had just made the announcement, saying it was the most
unusual announcement he had ever seen. Trump was still in the mood, but the
the truth was out there.
I said we needed to talk about the Iran nuclear deal because we had too many
Russian and Chinese allies in Europe, which was a total nonstarter. Pompeo said
Russia had long been more aggressive than Iran, but they had been a mere
second-tier power, and they were not as dangerous as Russia was. I said we
should talk about this at some point, but the bigger point was that we needed
to talk about this deal. Trump said he thought Russia had great leverage, but it
was all an effort to protect Hillary Clinton, and he wanted to talk about it in
early October. I said I would talk to Pompeo, who was at the G7 in Canada,
watching the Buenos Aires G20. He said he would tell Trump that Russia was
doing what it had done in Syria, which was a total nonstarter. We needed to
get off Russia talking, not Iran. I said we should talk about this at some point.
Trump said again that he thought Putin wanted the deal, which was
impressive, but that if we talked about it, Putin would be very unhappy. We
needed to talk about it, but Pompeo said that, after all the talking,
Putin was now ready to take our word for it. Trump said, “I don’t know how
much longer we can keep this going,” before I realized it was on
record raising the issue of Syria with Putin as a reason for
not discussing the Iran nuclear deal.


I left for Israel on Friday, October 10, the day after the G7 was
relegated. Israel had been in the mess hall for almost six hours before I
was there, traveling with Trump in his motorcade. I had spoken to
him before he arrived, and he was visibly unhappy with the Iran
deal, which was not right but important enough that he was willing to
make it a priority. I conveyed this to my Israeli counterparts, who said they
wanted to talk at some point, but they had to talk about it, which was not
exactly reassuring. Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said, “This is
not about the Iran nuclear deal.” I was worried about the possibility of
Obama-era sanctions relief, which I thought was a good idea. Israel’s
Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman (centre) in front of the Israel
Foreign Ministry on Friday, October 10, 2017. (Evan Vucci/AP)
US President Donald Trump speaks during a tour of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial
in Jerusalem on October 10, 2017.


On Saturday, I went to Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport to
travel with President Donald Trump, and the two leaders met regularly.


At about one thirty p.m., I thought we had the Iran nuclear deal (which is
always a problem for the US), and I called Pompeo, who was in Israel, to
congratulate him on his successful trip. After the call, I called Netanyahu, who
had just come to visit, and told him we needed to get Iran out of the
G7, which was going very badly, not just in terms of terrorism but also
nuclear proliferation. Netanyahu was surprised we hadn’t already given Iran more
nuclear attention, which was good news, since Iran was already one of the
world’s biggest oil importers, and he wanted to get Iran off our
plate of gold.


At nine thirty a.m., I called Pompeo, who was in Israel, to tell him we
needed to get Iran out of the G7 and keep the nuclear deal. I didn’t like
that Pompeo and I were talking about Iran, but he said, “We’re getting all the
Western Hemisphere attention,” so I said we should get it out of the G7.


The next day, I called Trump to tell him what had happened, and he said,
“I don’t like it,” which I thought was a big concession. I left the
White House around three p.m., and was never more than a little nervous.


I left the White House at six fifteen to go home, and then went back in
the morning to get breakfast ready for my return trip to Israel.


On Monday morning, I met with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who was
still in Israel to attend the G7, to see if there were any more issue.


Generated Text 02
Another “overwhelmingly successful” trade agreement with China. This was hardly “the “successor”
to” Trump, but it was certainly not a “failed” trade deal.


On trade, Pompeo and I agreed we were “hardly “in the conversation” on China,
despite our productive discussions with Trump. By contrast, Hill sources told me
the Administration was “better positioned” than I to defend “the “free-trade”
negotiations,” particularly the two-country agreement’s three-tiered approach to
trade and the one-size-fits-all approach. In fact, I was projecting a narrow
side at trade negotiations with Trump.


On trade issues, Pompeo and I also had common views on trade. He
was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War, and during the
1970s worked for the Asian Development Bank as its Ambassador-at-Law,
leading aid agencies and World War II veterans’ associations in Asia to lobby for
agreement on trade issues. I was a close friend and admirer of this bank’s
commitment to “free-trade” agreements, which were “significantly more
consistent, orderly, and non-agreed” than those
unagreed “with” or “agreed” approaches. I was not in the Administration’s
teahy camp, but I knew I should be.


On trade, Pompeo and I had similar views on China, but I was
more concerned about “the trade war’s overall impact on international
circumvista” issues than China’s overall economic and political impact,
which was growing rapidly. I also worried about the huge “trade deficit”
rounding China’s, which would inevitably push our trade negotiations
away from our core objectives of “free and open Indo-Pacific,” to “free and open
Indo-Pacific trade” issues. I could understand why China wanted to
be competitive in international trade, but it was unfair and unfair
to China, which was not expanding its economy enough to actually
have a competitive advantage, and that was why I wanted a “fair deal” that
was both equitable and a deal that was fair. In other words, I wanted
China to be competitive in trade, but we also needed to keep our “free-trade”
negotiations on our side of the ledger. I wanted to be sure that China’s
free-trade negotiations were “fair, just, and transparent” and that
the US was getting no unfair advantage from them.


On trade issues, China had its own issues, some of which were
insidious, but also finish. In the early stages of negotiations, they
were largely orderly, but then things got messy and
infinish got worse, with the Chinese trying to increase pressure on
US negotiators in Beijing, which we had already gotten used to, pushing
them so hard they could barely get into the “agreement” we were waiting
for. The negotiations were a mess, but we could see their efforts to
accelerate our trade increases rapidly, which we knew they didn’t
control, were also disastrously unfair.


On trade issues, China was getting increasingly belligerent, using
unfair concessions to make trade negotiations more
difficult. In recent weeks, China’s currency manipulations
were making trade negotiations even more complicated than they should be,
which was why I urged that the US withdraw from the deal and get out
of it.


On trade issues, China was getting increasingly belligerent, using
unfair concessions to make trade negotiations more difficult. In recent
weeks, China’s seizure of two US naval vessels in the South
Siberian Sea and suspected violations of all our most cherished
agreements with Japan and South Korea in the East Asia-Pacific region
were all part of a pattern of belligerence that could only grow more
dangerous as we got closer to the Trump Administration’s 2018
G20.


On trade, China was getting increasingly belligerent, using
unfair concessions to make trade negotiations more difficult. In recent
weeks, China’s seizure of two US naval vessels in the South
Siberian Sea and suspected violations of all our most cherished agreements with
Japan and South Korea in the East Asia-Pacific region was all part of
a pattern of belligerence that could only grow more dangerous as we got closer to
Trump’s 2018 G20 foreign leaders meeting in


Generated Text 03

For years, the US military has had a preference for its adversaries over us. At the end of the Cold War, when Germany and
others were at their wits' end, America was at its
maximum. Now, as in 1945, we are confronted with the dilemma of whether to
go to war with a friend that we admire, or to stay out of it altogether.
The former choice, in my view, is preferable to both. America has been
playing an increasingly important role, and a role that has been going on since
1945.


In recent years, however, the US has emerged as the mainstay of a
large number of regional, and even global, threats, with allies like Japan,
and the United States in particular, able to play important roles in global
security and in defense-spending affairs. In contrast to Japan and our
greatest Allies, we have some of the highest levels of trust in
both of our central strategic adversaries, and in our common national interests.
This has important consequences for our common adversaries, and for our common
interests in national security.
These consequences are not simply attributable to our common adversaries
changing their minds, or our having to spend more to defend ourselves, or
not having to spend more to defend ourselves. We have a common interest in
preserving and expanding US national security against threats of both China and
the People’s Republic of China, and not trying to monopolize or dominate
that space, or our having to defend ourselves against the increasing threat of
the People’s Republic of China, or others.
This is a common national interest problem and a real challenge for both of us,
but it has been largely digested and resolved by the efforts of the
most active and committed of the many countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Indeed, the United States has a strong interest in maintaining and expanding
already high levels of trust and trust-building in international affairs and in
international organizations, and in defending ourselves against China’s
large and growing threats. While this has been an issue of intense
adversarial debate in Washington, in fact, there’s evidence that in fact
the issues are much closer than one might think.
For example, China recently signed a trade agreement with the
United States, which is not yet complete, but is a substantial step forward.
And we’ve seen a significant increase in our bilateral defense-spending
relations with China over the past several years, which has been much larger
than was previously appreciated.
But this latest agreement is not yet complete, not in terms of terms of
signing deals, but in terms of more detailed negotiations. And we’ve seen
already dramatic increases in tensions between us, as evidenced by the
March 11 shooting down of US drone in Yemen by a Houthi
targeting group, which’s clearly not how China sees the world.


As for the China-US dispute, that’s another story. But at least for now,
it’s one that I don’t think is worth dwelling on in public.


CHAPTER 3


THE END OF THE IDYLL


By now, we have everything wrapped up on North Korea, and I
am quite prepared to go home. Trump’s favorite way to do it is to tell Kim Jong
Un he should leave (which he did on that flight). But what Kim Jong
Un told me on his way to the airport was, in Korean terms, the
same as I had the day before, namely, that they were very unhappy with my
performance, which is exactly what they had been hoping to achieve.
Indeed, the two most recent meetings I had with Trump were the
first on April 12 and 25 at Mar-a-Lago, and the two most recent
meetings I held with Xi Jinping were the first on April 24 and 25
at the end of this article.


CHAPTER 4


THE END OF THE IDYLL


Trump’s last meeting with Kim Jong Un was on April 21, but it lasted
almost the entire meeting. Trump, however, was not in the Sit Room for the
meeting, and instead had a private meeting with his parents outside the
Room, the last time I went. The meeting was arranged by the Chinese,
which was unusual, but not unprecedented.
I had long wondered if the North Koreans were following the usual pattern of
trying to make a deal, and that didn’t work. Instead, they seemed to be moving
more slowly than they should have been, trying to get a better deal than I
was prepared to accept. I was not surprised when Trump came in, but I
was stunned when he walked in and out of the room.


Generated Text 04
Billionaire hedge fund manager Paulson was also out of the country, only to return a few days later, claiming again that he had been
out of the country for a few days. But this is where we get to the heart of the matter. Paulson,
who has been taking his first steps toward becoming a billionaire, was
not about to leave the country for a few days, and on Monday, he reappeared at
his regular weekly meetings in the Cavendish, where he had been
holding talks with investors. He was not going to buy back what he had
gotten since his last meeting with investors in a London hotel. In fact, he had
not even wanted to meet investors yet, and instead was going to seize what he had
gotten. The whole thing was crazy to say the least, but I don’t think anyone, including
John McCain, should be allowed to speak on this topic.
One of the most sensational stories in the media about the Paulson meeting was
reported in the Washington Post, where we reported that, on Friday after
giving the meeting the publicity it had been desperately needed, Paulson had
been walking out, walking back, back to the hotel room where he had been
pursuing investors. He had made a terrible mistake, and now he was getting
beamed back. In a subsequent New York Times story, we learned that, on
August 25, the Post had obtained a copy of Paulson’s manuscript
for a story that might have been the story of the year 2000.
I didn’t read the piece, but at least I had my take on the situation.
In early August, I decided to call Trump to get an idea on what was
going on. He was still in the States, and I thought he might be interested in the
situation.

We went over the weekend to the Cavendish, which was packed with people
and we had a storm in the air. We raced up to the Cavendish, where the
Cipollone Hotel was located, where we had a meeting with the hotel
chairmen and the hotel manager, and we said what we would say to the
press about the meeting. We were told that the lawyers for the Paulson
meeting were in court in London, which was good. I called Shanahan, who was
doing a Washington visit, to see what the fuss was about, and we were told that the
Paulson meeting might be a factor in his acquittal. I called Dunford, as we
were both on vacation, to see if we could get more news on the meeting,
and he said, “There’s a lot of media coverage of this,” which was encouraging.
“Oh,” I said, “that’s great.” He said, “But the press is attacking this
meeting.” I said, “[It]’s all about the lawyers.” “I’m not going to
attack,” said Trump, “so let’s get it out of the way first.” I said,
“Why don’t you go back and look?” He said, “Why don’t you go back and look?”


“I want the lawyers,” I said, “and we’ll get it out of here.” He said, “I want the
talks done.” I said, “But the media is attacking me.” I said, “Why don’t you go


back and look?”


I left the meeting in a hurry, but I called Shanahan, who was in his office
doing a Washington visit, to see what the fuss was about. He said, “The
press is attacking me.” I said, “That’s great. The press is attacking you.”


“What do you mean by that? What are they getting out of this?”


I said, “They’re getting out of everything.”


“What do you mean by that?”


“Well, they’re getting out of everything,” I said, “that’s great. The
media is attacking you. It’s like a drug.”


I left the meeting feeling very strongly that the media were in the wrong place,
and I was glad to report that the press was attacking me. I was very
excited to meet with Trump, but I also had to admit I was not expecting much.
“Do you think the media will be happy about this?”


“I don’t”


Generated Text 05
otherwise, the
world would soon be a better place. The “simple”
theory, which I saw offered up in a seminar on the topic at
the University of Chicago’s “National Accelerator Laboratory,” was simply to
condemn the impression that mathematics was a science in a way that was
more complicated, more elaborate, and more difficult than other
scientific fields, and so the pace of the research would be fast enough to
not be lost on the way home.


I was certainly on the verge of a difficult mathematical problem. In the
nineties, I had worked at the Department of Physics at Cal Tech, for a time
achieving my Ph.D. in 1964, but I did not have any previous physics training
there. For years I had used the same students for the same work,
which didn’t produce any great change. The problem was to find a
good group of people and then to do a large group experiment. This
was different and, when done in groups, was much more rewarding.
The first group consisted of men who had been trained at Cal Tech to
squirt ions through a tube with an acid. They did this experimentally
because it was more fun to do than to do in real life. Another group consisted
of people who had been trained at Cal Tech to solve problems in a
simple and elegant manner. The first group came in at the end of
the 1950–eightieth century, when I was a professor. We had a computer
computer—a new one was being developed at the time—which I found
interesting. The first time I worked there was in the late 1950s, when I
worked in the Department of Physics at Cal Tech, for a time, I was a
Professor there; I had worked on a theory of elementary particles since I
graduated from Cal Tech. This theory was based on the idea that the
energy levels of the particles were determined by the interaction of two
particles. This was not the same as solving for the energy levels of the particles
in a real laboratory, or solving for the energy levels of atoms in a room. The
reasons for this way of solving had been known since then. But this
was the first time I would go into a place like Cal Tech’s, with
like-minded people, and I was very amazed at how well they were doing
in the early days of the computer. The computers had been built to solve


real problems, and to do so, they had to be very difficult. Even the most experienced
computer scientists would find it hard to keep up with such a large
computer.

One day I came to my office in the late afternoon, and I was told that we
were going to have a new department of physics. The first thing I did was
think about how the equations for the electron and the 3-photon
particles were supposed to work. The first thing I did was to write down a
figure of the equations for the three-particle equation, and then to
refer back to the equation for the charge in a nucleus, and the
number of neutrons in the nucleus. Then I sketched diagrams of two
different ways of working, and I said, “I have no idea what you are doing,” which
was quite funny. I began to wonder if we might have to make a new
mechanical problem, like the one we were about to solve. So I wrote down
three quantities that I thought were quite important: the total energy of the
particles, and the energy levels of neutrons in the nucleus. I then had a
discussion with the theoretical physicist Fred Ehrsam, whose group was working on


particles in charge. He asked, “How much energy can we use here, assuming
energy is conserved?” I replied, “If you take the energy in the nucleus
and multiply it by the energy in the three-particle equation, you get the
total energy of the three-particle equation. I then went over the problem
again, and again, and again. The result was that I could do
one group experiment at a time, and yet another group experiment.


I was almost done with the problem when I got a phone call. I was going to


go into the office and talk to one group of physicists, and I was about
to call them off. I hadn’t thought of it then. When I opened the door, I
was surprised to see that the guy who had been my mentor there was
still in the office. He had just gotten out of a seminar.


.



Skylar Ang
Model_name= GPT-2_355M
Steps= 1000
Trained Time,s= 00:44:08
Learning Rate= 3.0 x 10^-4
Length= 500,
Creativity = 0.7,
External Data Size= 12,094KB::



Tittle Author Pages Trained Time,s Model_Name Learning Rate
1Q84 Haruki Murakami 435 00:02:30
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Brave New World
Aldous Huxley 255 00:01:20
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Creative Mythology
Joseph Campbell 554 00:04:43
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Death’s End Liu Cixin 467 00:05:34
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Invisible Cities Italo Calvino 423 00:03:30
 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Kafka on the Shore Haruki Murakami 314 00:02:21
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Out of Control Kevin Kelly
 457 00:02:34
 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Book of Imaginary Beings Luis Borges 235 00:01:30
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Dark Forest
 Liu Cixin 432 00:04:32
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Foundation Series
 Isaac Asimov 314 00:02:30
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Hero With a Thousand Faces
 Joseph Campbell 425 00:02:50
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Martian Andy Weir 324 00:03:30
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Metamorphosis Franz Kafka 336 00:03:38
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Three-Body Problem Liu Cixin 365 00:03:58 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Whole Earth Discipline Stewart Brand 325 00:03:10 355M
3.0 x 10^-4


Prefix= “Faces”,
nsamples= 05,
Batch_size= 05,



Generated Text 01
Faces of the Day The story's first chapter, where the two The Grandfather of the Universe gods, is not particularly poetry. It is a tale of wonder-I do not know whether in the stories of the Žïan civilization and the other two mythologies of the gods and the angel, in the dark ages of our own, and from the literal of the word, dream, the heroes are not dreamers, but dreamers of the deeper and more terrible dreams, the dreams of the Pueblo, the shingy, the choriza-

//voodoo, and the other myths of the god

y, the dreamer of the Other, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God. The dreamer of the god, the dreamer of the god, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God. And also all the nemeseses, the dreamers, the dreamers of the God, the dreamers of the God, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God, the dreamer of the God, the

dreamer of the God.

The same word is used in the

Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead,
and in the
Pueblo Pueblo's Book of the Dead


Generated Text 02
Faces of the Past, And The Poet’s Life.

The three volumes of the Tractatus, or an explanation of the subject as a whole,are read each night to the members of the transcendental school, who, on the occasion of the second month of their study, remember:November 14th: “I have passed from the Idea of the First Person to the Idea of the Second Person, and conceived that the present-self is a being of one sort or another and that the two-sidedness of the two-world reality is the result of the duality of the two

worlds of being.”

December 14th: “This passage, a bit puzzling, is one of the few which do not appear in any of the other volumes of the Tractatus.”

“I have no difficulty in seeing that all astral beings
are two-sided, ” says Schopenhauer.


What is the meaning of the passage?

The passage indicates the two-sidedness of the two-worlds of being that takes place in the normal life of the practitioners of the two-worlds philosophy,

they say. “The two-sidedness of the two-worlds of being is in fact the result of the duality of the two worlds of being. That is the only meaning of the passage. It is only a passage that illustrates the two-sidedness of the two-worlds of being. The passage is not a discussion of the aspects of two-worlds philosophy, but rather a point of view. It is a passage of the philosophers, not the philosopher, who point out the two-sidedness of the two-worlds of being.

The passage shows that one of the two-sidednesses, that is, the two-crucial, two-block elements of a three-dimensional world are two-worlds. One of these elements is two-worlds, the other is three-dimensionalism.

the two-sidedness of the two-worlds, that is, the two-worlds of being in everyday life, which is a fact that the two-worlds of philosophy are not able to explain. The philosophers are in the process of developing an


Generated Text 03

Faces
The way it was made, It was a fine result.

“I see. In the future, if there’s a God, you’ll be a God with a god’s body,” Aomame said.
“I’ll be,” Aomame replied.
“But you’re a woman,” the head of the Mission said. “A woman’s
body is not a god’s body.”
“And if God is a god, he’s the God of the Universe.”
“If God is a god, he’ll be a god.”
“But I’m not a god,” Aomame said.
“Then you’re not a god,” the head of the Mission said.
“I’m not a god.”
“What you have is no god.”
“You’re not a god.”
“Because I’m not a god,” the head of the Mission said.
“Then what are you saying?” Aomame asked.
“I’m not a god,” the head of the Mission said. “I don’t believe in God. I’m a God.
There’s no God.”
“A god?” Aomame asked.
The head of the Mission shook his head. “I don’t believe in God. I’m not a
god.”

Aomame said, “What exactly do you mean by not believing in God?
Isn’t it just a bit of nonsense?”
The head of the Mission shook his head again. “I don’t believe in God
because I’m not a god.”
“But what if God is a god?” Aomame asked.
“A god doesn’t have a body.”
“Then God is a god,” the head of the Mission said. “But it’s not a god
to me.”
“If God


Generated Text 04

 Faces, occupying the whole body. This is the principle of the Avatar System.

“The Avatar system is based on two fundamental principles:
(1) The system must not be confused with the system of the
brain. The system is strictly an ecological system, and
every action must be processed by the system.”
“The system is based on the concept of a critical moment. If
the system breaks, the system dies. If the system fails, the system dies.”
“The system is the process of living, not just the process of death.
The system also makes the system, the system.”
“The system is the process of living, not just the process of death. The
system is the process of life.”
“The system is the process of living, not just the process of death. The
system is the process of life, not just the process of death.”
“One of the main ideas of the system is that the system is
the process of living, not just the process of death.”
“The system is the process of living, not just the process of death.”
“In many systems, the terminal system is the whole system. The terminal
system is the whole system. The system is the whole system. The system is the whole system.
The system is the whole system. The system is the whole system.
The system is the system, not just the process of life.”
“The system is the process of living, not just the process of death. The
system is the process of living, not just the process of death. The system is the
system, not just the process of death. The system is the whole system.
The system is the system, not just the process of death. The system is the
system, not just the process of life. The system is the whole system.
The system is the system, not just the process of life. The system is the
system, not just the process of death. The system is the whole system.
The system is the system, not just the process of death. The system is the
system, not just the process of life. The system is the whole system.

The Avatar System
The Avatar Program

A spiritual philosophy of life,


Generated Text 05

Faces of the ancients

[on]


"I am the one who was born with the power
to destroy the world. I am the one who is the
only one who knows how to destroy the world. I am the one
who is the one who knows how to destroy the world. I am the
one who is the only one who knows how to destroy the world."

--

"If you kill the world, you are the one who is the one
who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who knows how to destroy the world."

--

"The only one who knows how to kill the world is the last-
breath of the world, and the last-breath of the world is me.
I am the one who is the one who is the one who is the one
who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who knows how to destroy the world.
I am the one who is the one who is the one who is the one
who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one

who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the last breath of the world.


"Within me are the same powers as in the world.
"In the world are the same powers as in the world.
"In the world are the same powers as in the world.
"In the world are the same powers as in the world.
"In the world are the powers of the world, and
the powers of the world are the powers of the world.
The powers of the world are the powers of the world.


.



Mikhail Hilmi
 Model_name= GPT-2_355M
Steps= 1000
Trained Time,s= 00:41:03
Learning Rate= 3.0 x 10^-4
Length= 500,
Creativity = 0.7,
External Data Size= 14,940KB::



Tittle Author Pages Trained Time,s Model_Name Learning Rate
AA Files (2001 - 2017)
 AA School 4650 00:05:45
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
At art basel 2018
Art-Basel 155 00:02:50
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Contradictions and Transformative Trajectory of Art & Labor
Rena Rädle & Vladan Jeremić 22 00:00:30 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Encyclopédie Denis Diderot 841 00:04:45
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Yuval Noah Harari 358 00:02:56
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
My Art Guide at Basel An Art Basel & UBS Report 240 00:02:57
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Yuval Noah Harari
382 00:03:54
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Supercommunity #65 e-Flux 37 00:00:55
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Supercommunity, Superconversation, Supernova
 Lucie Kolb 18 00:00:40
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Art Market 2017
An Art Basel & UBS Report 144 00:01:34
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World From Scratch
Lewis Dartnell 356 00:03:00
355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Thinking, Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman 468 0:04:500
 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
When Art Meets Money Art Basel 345 00:03:10 355M
3.0 x 10^-4
Whole Earth Catalog (01968) Steward Brand 452 00:03:23 355M
3.0 x 10^-4


Prefix= “___”,
nsamples= 05,
Batch_size= 05,



Generated Text 01
The 'Bravest' Art Museum in Japan
(坂井漢学堂) shows off a vast array
of Japanese artworks in its state-of-the-art
a heavy metal-clad facade and an artificial

Culture Arts District. The 'bravest' is the
From the Rokkaku Shõbö , one of Tokyo's most
Daisaka and its relationship to the modern

art structures
city. Inside, the gallery is decorated with
of Japanese architecture, it is clear from the
to be recognised not only for its alacrity
but also for the sheer scale of its facilities.

The building at the western end is the
Japanese Art Museum, designed by an
the quality of its execution, but also for the


Tokyo Electric Power Company (JAPC) in 1953. In
Trinity Building, designed by Isozaki in 1957.
The vast Japanese gallery is surrounded by a kitchen
the contrast between the sleek, glass-filled interior and the
showing off the 'heart of the city'. The huge, light-filled
the entrance is flanked by the large stone architec-shops that run along the walls and the planes of the the gallery is silent except for a light tap on the door.

Tower is the Japanese Pavilion at the Olympic Games, Tsukasa's work is often associated with a Isozaki's Tokyo Pavilion at the Olympic Games, with its seamless transitions from the original Ito's only major architectural commission, for which
and the contemporary to the post-modern, the
an elevated, glass-clad terrace. Its design was
In contrast, the 'sleaziest' of the two buildings

2. Isozaki's Tokyo Pavilion, 1957
ma
of the other, the Sadao art museum is decorated
with historical photographs and the occasional
Courtesy Jinsei na
The 'bravest' of the two is the statue

ADVERTISEMENT
27
AA
FILES

This content downloaded from
202.187.49.56 on Wed, 09 Dec 2020 20:18:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

67
Tsukasa,
King of Illusion,
The
Kyoto


Generated Text 02
In the early 1970s, a small group of mathematicians — Jean Bauwens and Theodor Adorno —
had a radical idea about mathematics. They proposed that all the real problems
were out there, and that we could solve them with great effort and
care. The first group of mathematicians, Bauwens and Adorno, built
a machine that would study and solve the problems. The second group
of mathematicians, Bauwens and Reinhard Rauschenberg, built the
Bauwens-Rauschenberg Institute, which became a center for
research on the problems they had designed. The Institute
was staffed by young mathematicians, and through the 1970s
we worked together on a huge experiment that took us
and a bunch of other mathematicians from the Institute to

Ludwig-Reinhard-Gegenstandshof
wierzschild-Vorbeck-Museum
(Ludwig-Reinhard-Museum for the
Ludwig-
Suhrung, the Ludwig-
shofstraum, the Ludwig-Museum,
wierzschild-Vorbeck-Museum,
straum) to the Baumeisterhof, the Baumeisterhof,
the Baumeisterhof, or simply Bundlinghaus as
they were called.

How did the Bauwens and Rauschenberg
research program develop?
This was the key question, because the Bauwens and Rauschenberg
were the first group of mathematicians to build a machine
that could solve problems.
That was the interesting thing about the Bauwens and Rauschenberg
institute. They were the first group of mathematicians to
build a machine that could solve problems. To be very
complete, the Bauwens and Rauschenberg Institute
forty years ago. We knew from the beginning that we wanted
to do something different. We had a lot of freedom
play around on the idea of letting the mathematicians come in and
design our own machine. We didn’t want it to be

We started by creating a prototype of a machine that
they could use. We called it a machine that could
see and feel the forces around it. We called it a

Machine that we wanted to build. It was a
(mm machine) that would allow mathematicians to
we were developing. It was a
far away object that we
we were creating, but it
was to large.


Generated Text 03
Buttercup, who is now in
only a year old, has been steadily
a study in how the young
are made. It is
Gracieux, the first
unusual, but also
of the many languages
polluted by the
in a way that suggests
the French, as if
First, we have to
a culture of
the French language,
with some very
the French government,
the new academic
that's been described
aid, the public
a kind of community,

of all the languages in
of the French language, it
goes in the same direction
but to a different

the French government,
the French language,
and a very
like the
with the French

to work,
to a museum,
a culture of
a culture of
in the past,

in the same direction
and a very
similar to the
a culture of

in the same direction
French. It
others. It will

a kind of
a kind of
the French

the French
it will
it will
resonance

the French, it shall
a kind of
a kind of
resonance

of the French, it shall
the French

a kind of
resonance
of the French, it shall
the French.


Generated Text 04
They said, ‘On the basis of the evidence of the experts, we believe that it is in the best interest of the public to waive the privilege.’ It was then A judge, a man named Raymond R. Griffith, Jr., who presided over the trial. Griffith was a lawyer who had worked with

in the department of Justice and got at the law. He said that, in like the effort to make it more just by filing fewer frivolous lawsuits.

The law later said, ‘The law is not about him. It is about the people. It is When Griffith found a case that he liked, he filed it.’ Griffith was a superb lawyer.

I am sorry, but you are not being asked to be a part of the system of the American public. The judge said, ‘You understand that there are a and so he wrote it, and it is my responsibility to make sure that the public is always better off if the people are free to do their own, they are free to act, to think, to act and to think. Therefore, life. Which is something that is important to me. So I will

very, very careful to make sure that the people have the liberty to do something, to act, to speak, to write, to have a press, to do

things, and that the people have the liberty to do their own affairs.


So that I can be, as the judge put it to me, the public servant.

Now, when I’m working in a case, I’m trying to give it my best....

I am afraid there is a great deal of that....


I want the public to have its own life. I want the public to have opportunities to do its own things, and I want the public to have the liberty to act, to think, to act and to think, without be subject to the judgments of others. I want the public to have a chance to have its own life. I want the public to have liberty


a chance to know itself. I want the public to know itself.

the liberties of its own mind. I want freedom to have its own life.

I want the public to have the liberty to act, to think, to act
to act, to think, to think and to think. I want the
to be free to be as free as it is possible for a man to act,
to be free of all the restraints of society. I want the
to have liberty. I am afraid there is a great deal of it.

be free to act, to think, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty. I’m afraid there is a great deal of it.
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
to have freedom to act, to think and to think. I want the
act, to think and to think. I want the public to have liberty to
think, to think and to think.


to have liberty to act. I am afraid there is a great deal of that.
to act as a man does, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty to act, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty to act, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty to think, to think and to think. I want the
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
have liberty to act, to think, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty to act, to think and to think. I want the
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
have liberty to act, to think and to think. I want the
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
to have liberty to act, to think and to think. I want the
to have liberty to think and to think. I want the public
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to have
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to
to think and to think. I want the public to act,
to act, to think and to think. I want the public
I want the public to be free to act, to think
and to think. I want the public to be free to
to act, to think and to think. I want the public to act, to think.


Generated Text 05
Do you have a collection of books with a lot of space left over?
Certainly, you can use the library of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Academy of Arts and Arts in the

for a project of that sort. They have along a good selection of books,
and often a good selection of coffee.


It is not very difficult to get enough coffee here.
One of the best services that we have found is that they have coffee
along the walls of a number of buildings downtown. The bookshelves are

of the first order quality. The coffee is only about half a pound, but
it is good for the body.


Be sure to check the coffee list if you are in Philadelphia.
The library of the Academy of Arts and Arts is located in the

beyond the library at 13 Farragut.

The best place in the city to go to for coffee is the
Century Arms Coffee House. They have several kinds of
of cups. The best thing they offer is a warm cup of
coffee. They always have a good selection of coffee.

It is not necessary to go to a German Coffee House
to get good coffee. The best cups are available in the
German Coffee House. They also have a good selection of
soda drinks, and various kinds of coffee.

The best place to get coffee is through the city.
The best place to pay for coffee is to go to
a coffee house. There is a good selection of
cafes. The best thing to do is to get
a good cup of coffee in a coffee house.
Coffee is about half a pound, and
the best thing to have is a warm
cup.


The best place to
go to for coffee is to go to a
cafe. The best thing to do is
to get a cup of coffee in a coffee
house. The best thing to
have is a warm cup.


The best place to find coffee
are; the usual places are;
the usual places are;
the usual places are;
to the nearest coffee houses.
must be the nearest coffee house.
the nearest coffee house.

The best coffee houses are:

1. East Central Bakery

2. The Coffee House Cafe

3. The Coffee House Coffee Shop

4. The Coffee Shop Coffee House

5. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café

6. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop

7. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café

8. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café Café

9. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café Café

5. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café Café

6. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

7. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

8. The Coffee Shop Coffee Shop Café Café

9. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

10. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

11. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

12. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café

13. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café Café

14. The Coffee Shop Café Café Café Café