I’m not seeing how that makes it any better. They knew it was just an experiment but still allowed people with the mere authority of “running an experiment” manipulate them into acting like that. Or accepted permission from them to act like that without needing to be manipulated into it.
That clarification just brings into question the wording of the conclusion, I don’t think it does anything to redeem our species and how it handles power over others.
At a high level, there’s two main ways to handle increasing/decreasing scores: event-focused or state-focused.
For event-focused, you basically have different events that can affect the score. Adding clothing with trigger an event that adds score if it’s a good placement or reduces if it’s bad, and then vice versa for removing clothes. You can have other modifiers like maybe the first time something is worn, extra points are awarded or maybe preferences are modified.
For state-focused scoring, you’ll pretty much recalculate the score from 0 each update. Clothes being worn get added to the score and clothes not worn don’t affect it. This one has less flexibility but is more likely to end up with a coherent score because it’s being recalculated from scratch each time (so any bugs will be easier to reproduce).
Or ask if round earth is a massive conspiracy, what’s the angle? How does getting people to believe in a flat earth rather than a round one serve an agenda to the point where even a simple test that could prove the flatness always “goes wrong”? And if they say that the experimenters get threatened or something, why do they generally remain as confused flat earthers afterwards? If they were going to be threatened, why half-ass it and let them continue pushing flat earth instead of making them change sides?
What an entitled and dumb twat. I guess he didn’t think it through that the guy maintaining it now doesn’t have some magical ability to tell who would be a good new owner and “handing over the mainline” to any one person could screw people more than any AI changes because that new person might be malicious or neglectful.
Forks need to earn trust and it’s best that that step isn’t skipped by some inheritance. Not that there even is any obligation to hand it off no matter how many people rely on it or complain.
And the comparison with ms or Google was dumb because I didn’t expect them to do it the way I wanted and stopped using what I could to get away from where they were going and any expectation that they hand over their projects to someone else would be ridiculous (and Google open source projects have been forked).
Have you mentioned yet that anyone can do that second one by making their own fork? And that no one is required to give a fuck about how they think it should be done?
Any specific issues though? Yeah, it’s a large change and I’d be more surprised if it didn’t have issues, but are there any specific issues with the updates that have been found so far?
Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.
Yeah and that rod can be used to make or break a circuit, and often is the mechanism used in a relay. The clicking noise is that rod slamming into the stops.
Or felt the heat from the oven, especially if her routine brings her close to it. Or just got annoyed at the sound the solonoids make as it cycled on and off to hold the temperature.
But there’s a non-zero chance she knew that the human had started doing something with the box that makes things that go in it smell delicious and then got distracted and wanted to remind the human, either wanting to smell some delicious smells or even understanding that that box shouldn’t be on when it isn’t making delicious smells (from observing other interactions with or around the oven).
You can train it on all the source code, meta data for that source code, and documentation you want but it will never understand programming. It’s a text predictor that was trained on both sides of a bunch of debates. Contradictions mean nothing to it, but it usually only predicts what one side of the debate will say to champion its side, which means it will use confident and absolute language to “sell” whatever side of the debate it looks like the previous tokens are headed towards.
It is impressive what it can output sometimes and it makes a decent debate/exploration partner, but it will always have a chance at predicting a useless series of tokens or contradicting the previous thing it just said because a) its training data only trains it to predict tokens from statistics, and b) its training data includes some of those contradictions directly.
I have lost count of the times I’ve been “thinking out loud” about something with an LLM and realize something about what I’m thinking about that contradicts what it is currently saying, then I’ll add my new perspective and it agrees entirely, despite the contradiction. Sometimes it tries to resolve the contradiction, sometimes it just abandons what it said previously entirely, sometimes it adds more to the perspective that I hadn’t considered.
That’s fine for just shooting the shit about some random topic but horrible for a tool intended to provide expertise and reliability, when the response matters because it feeds into something else and you want to automate it. Should a tool just inject “are you sure?” after each response? What if it makes it second guess something that was correct? What if it’s one of those debates and it will endlessly switch sides when it faces any opposition? That’s a waste of resources and time.
Funny thing is I’m expecting this to eventually go back to scripting for automation. An LLM has a higher chance of outputting a script that does what you want (depending on the task) while you hold its hand than it does of consistently giving the correct output when it is thrown into an automated system directly. But you get “goodish” results much quicker just trying putting the LLMs everywhere, even if there’s some selection bias on the results (“didn’t work, didn’t work, oh it worked, great!”).
For someone fluent in all involved languages, sure.
But from the sounds of it, OP’s company outsources the translation but doesn’t fully trust the output they get back. They’re back to square one for verifying it, because if they knew both languages enough to verify, they could do the translations themselves.
The problem AI is trying to solve is “how do I access a skill I don’t have cheaply?” It’s only because it’s bad at that problem that it has shifted to “how can we use AI to get more production out of the skilled workers we still need to babysit the AI that is unreliable at everything?”
I’m sure you could involve a torch in there somehow to raise the stakes even more. Grilled Cheese Flamble has a certain ring to it.
It’s kinda like the push to return to office. It was driven by corps having invested in the “can’t fail (ignoring the last previous crash)” real estate market and buying their offices. If everyone suddenly works from home instead of in the office, then those investments go bad because demand for office space is way down. So they tell people to go back to the office, hoping to return to that “every business needs offices!” status quo and save their investments. Though the demand is false (especially combined with layoffs), so it won’t necessarily cause any new corp to want that office space. If they don’t have the sunk cost, then they don’t need to accept the rest of the fallacy.
With AI, it’s the same but just replace building investment with R&D as well as data centre investment. A lot of the companies really pushing AI are the ones that will profit from people going along with that. They really want to build a dependence amongst users as well as a good reputation for execs so they can get a return on the investment. Then there’s also the True Believers (who think LLMs are brilliant AIs that can solve anything if given the right prompts) and the FOMOs (who don’t know much about it but see the world moving towards it and don’t want to miss it because if it was a real AI, missing it could be a massive mistake). There’s also some people who just don’t have various skills and want the AI agents to fill those gaps (and probably don’t have a very good idea about what the LLMs are actually doing in those gaps).
At this point, I think it’s a mistake to go all in on this tech. LLMs aren’t reliable, and their ability to “perform” is more about their flexibility than being well-suited for any task. They’ll go directly from saying things that seem “insightful” (they have no insight) to making the dumbest “mistake” (a mistake requires intent, which they lack, they just predict tokens). But there’s all kinds of false and true (albeit misguided IMO) demand right now and it’s still in early pricing mode (remember the intent is to make that investment money back).
Oh and there’s also China which has been making more efficient models and open sourcing some of them. If they continue to do this, there’s a decent chance those investments will never give the desired returns, at least not to those who are trying to sell tokens. Or those who depend on those selling tokens, like any hardware companies selling hardware under the assumption that it will then make the money to pay for itself (which I believe both nVidia and AMD have done).
It’s mirroring the dotcom bubble with that last bit because network cable companies started loaning the money to pay for their cables to ISPs, expecting returns that never came.
Only if it’s been trained on discussions about it.
Yeah, I read them as a teen and really liked them, so read them (well, the Belgariad, at least, then kinda stalled on the next series) to my daughter more recently and didn’t find them quite as enjoyable. They were still fun but full of a bunch of questionable shit. I’d say it was very boomeresque with a lot of its humour. Also the weird recurring “oh drat, you have out-negotiated me again, Silk!”
Or they might see it as the infection is spreading and it might be safest to eliminate it now.
“Follow that cab!”
Though when Magnus Carlson does it, the insult is deliberate, but he’s got the skills to back it up. Like “go ahead and develop, I’m just going to spend the first 10 moves sending my king on a meandering path that just ends up swapping king and queen’s positions and then I’ll win anyways”.
Fwiw, I also think the idea that someone should resign after a mistake is silly. If you want to take offense that I think there’s a chance either I could come back or you’ll make a similar impact mistake of your own, then go ahead and be offended and beat me if you can. Getting pissed off about that might just make you more sloppy anyways.
Hell, I’d even go so far as to say that the act of getting offended they don’t resign is a tactic to get them to resign in the first place. And makes for more boring games because seeing games to completion is interesting.
I just thought the image of it applying to this specific case where a master plays against a novice and resigns after letting them gain an advantage was funny. Of course the son would have wanted to keep playing when he was finally up a queen. The deadpan didn’t land, but that’s a risk I accepted when I embraced dryer humour. I’m not going to resign.
Feels just as delightful as an adult when your prescription changes enough since the last update.
I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the “what” but not much about the “why” for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces).