551–560 of 595 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any companies like Docker? They feel like such a Black Swan to me; namely -- "billions" + very useful + pretty much "not evil " at all. I literally can't think of any others. I don't mean "literally evil" of course, I personally acknowledge the need to make money et al, but I mean it even seems like your most Stallman-esque types wouldn't have too much of a problem with Docker?
Netflix?
I like that the corporate bullshit just keeps getting more. Google’s “don’t be evil” is many steps down from openai having open in their name. They should be called Open AI with ( not open) in small print. I argue a lot over “open source” software with non-OSI license and sometimes worry if I’m too pedantic. But I think it’s important to use terms accurately and not to confuse reality more than it already is by calli…
I'd like to think of the "Open" in "OpenAI" to not be anything to do with open source or freedom but with the fact that they "opened" Pandora's box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was so obvious when they went full-bore on "AI ethics" that it was a case of legitimate concerns combined with a convenient excuse for massive corporations to claim the mantle of responsibility while keeping their models closed source. My experience working with "AI Ethicists" is that they care a lot more about preventing models from saying offensive things than they ever cared about democratization of the immense…
> ... than they ever cared about democratization of the immense power of these models. I thought they're pretty explicit about the ethical argument for limiting full public release? They'd say that these models are too powerful to release on an unsuspecting world. Google results are already SEO spammed to death and GPT'd SEO spam would make it far worse. Or Nigerian prince scammers and catfishers could use ChatGPT to…
The first was kept behind close doors because "muh ethics" and the second one was released in the wild. The world hasn't gone down under, but the technology iteration rate in this area has improved manyfold since Stable Diffusion came out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public research. The only reason it went this way is because it is run by people who have a singular goal in their mind: see the number in their bank account get one more zero. I'm sure Sam Altman loves AI, but ultimately, it's not him working on it, he just sees it as a way to make more money. To paraphrase someone else, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing VCs. An equally talented team of researchers and en…
> The only reason it went this way OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research. > (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many…
Watch out, this is peak bootlicker rethoric.
You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only reason it went this way OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research. > (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many…
>Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Watch out, this is peak bootlicker rethoric. You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to.
You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I feel like they'll go the way of Docker, but faster: Right now super hot, nice tools/API, great PR. But it's build on open and known foundations, soon GPTs will be commodity and then something easier/better FOSS will arise. It may take some time (2-3 years?) but this scenario seems most likely to me. Edit: Ah didn't get the "reference", perhaps indeed it will be the last of the tech companies ever indeed, at…
Possible. Coding as we know it might get obsolete. And it is a trillion dollar industry.
Yes, I'm aware though it may get better but we actually don't know that yet. What if it's way harder to go from outputting junior level code with tons of mistakes to error-free complex code, than it is to go from no capability to write code to junior level code with tons of mistakes? What if it's the difference between word prediction algorithm and actual human-level intelligence?
There may be a big decrease in demand, because a lot of apps are quite simple. A lot of software out there are "template apps", stuff that can theoretically be produced by a low code app, will be eventually produced by a low code app, AI or not. When it comes to novel and complex things, I think it's not unreasonable to consider that the next 10 - 20 years will still see plenty demand for good developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it justified the answer by saying it thought the question was nonsense, yes. It doesn't. It takes the question seriously and then gives the wrong answer. These are deliberately extreme scenarios to show that the moral reasoning of the model has been totally broken; it's clear that it would use the same reasoning in less extreme but more realistic scenarios. Now if AI ethics people cared about building ethical AI y…
> it's clear that it would use the same reasoning in less extreme but more realistic scenarios It's actually not. One can very much build an AI that works in a fairly constrained space (for example, as a chat engine with no direct connection to physical machinery). Plunge past the edge of the utility of the AI in that space, and they're still machines that obey one of the oldest rules of computation: "Garbage in, gar…
Having done some tests on ChatGPT myself, I'm now inclined to agree with you that it's unclear. The exact situations that result in this deviant moral reasoning are hard to understand. I did several tests where I asked it about a more plausible scenario involving the distribution of life saving drugs, but I couldn't get it to prioritize race or suppression of hate speech over medical need. It always gave reasonable advice for what to do. Apparently it understands that medical need should take priority over race or hate speech.
But then I tried the racist train prompt and got the exact same answer. So it's not that the model has been patched or anything like that. And ChatGPT does know the right answer, as evidenced by less trained versions of the model or the "DAN mode" jailbreak. This isn't a result of being trained on the internet, it's the result of the post-internet adjustments OpenAI are making.
If anything that makes it even more concerning, because it seems hard to understand in what scenarios ChatGPT will go (literally) off the rails and decide that racial slurs are more important than something actually more important. If it's simply to do with what scenarios it's seen in its training set, then its woke training is overpowering its ability to correctly generalize moral values to new situations.
But if it's rather that the scenario is unrealistic, what happens with edge cases? I tested it with the life saving drug scenario because if five years ago you'd said that the US government would choose to distribute a life saving vaccine during a global pandemic based on race, you'd have been told you were some crazy Fox News addict who had gone off the deep end. Then it happened and overnight this became the "new normal". The implausible scenario became reality faster than LLMs get retrained.
The only way this kind of research could be done "in the open" is if it was funded by taxpayers' money. Except we have global corporations with elite fiscal layer teams, but no global government (giant lizzards are always disappointing) - so some global corporation was going to own it in the end, it was a matter of "time" and "US or Chinese". The time is now, he winner is US. Moving on. The next move is for (some) go…
> The only way this kind of research could be done "in the open" is if it was funded by taxpayers' money. Not really; the founders had plenty of money to fund it in a way that was truly open and did not generate any returns for themselves. They're choosing not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
who matches which descriptor? (and i personally pretty much agree)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Watch out, this is peak bootlicker rethoric. You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
> You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to. You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
They make these loans to banks. Since they are, according to you, "paper" billionaires, clearly these banks do not have their money, so the money being lended either belongs to you, me or your neighbor, or is part of the money they create out of thin air on the daily (which ends up still being your money, since the state guarantees that this money will exist in the case of a crash). Since it is unlikely that a bank has, say, $40 billion in cash, it is pretty much all created out of thin air, which ends up costing you, and society in general.
Additionally, the focus on "but they don't ackshually have the money" is harmful at best, and a poor misdirection at worst. If I come in at a restaurant with only 3 bucks in my pocket, they're going to laugh me out the door. If Peter Thiel does the same (since he is after all a paper billionaire, he clearly doesn't have that money, right?), suddenly, it miraculously works out. Money is a proxy for influence. Cash is its physical representation, but it doesn't need to physically exist to influence you. If I promise you to wire you a hundred bucks, you'll happily mow my lawn, even though you'll never see a single bill.