191–200 of 296 posts
>Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more prominent link treatments. Finally, through PPP, OpenAI also offers licensed financial terms to publishers. This is what a lot of people pushing for open models fear - responses of commercial models will be biased based on marketing spend.
> "its purpose is to help ChatGPT users more easily discover and engage with publishers’ brands and content." What end user actually wants this? I've never in my life woke up and said, "You know what, I'd love to 'engage' with a corporate brand today!" or "I would love help to easily discover Burger King's content, that would be great!" The euphemisms they use for 'spam' are just breathtaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true really. With well written prompts GPT4 is better at some things and worse at others than Claude/Llama3. GPT4 only appears to be the best by a wide margin if your benchmark suite is vague, poorly specified prompts and your metric for evaluation is "did it guess what I wanted accurately"
My benchmark is giving it novel (i.e. guaranteed to not be in the training set) logical puzzles that require actual reasoning ability, and seeing how it performs. By that benchmark, GPT-4 significantly outperforms both LLaMA 3 and Claude in my personal experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally charge a LOT for their services
$20 ARPU averages out to about $1 in profit in typical SaaS. Gotta generate more than that to make investors whole, unfortunately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main reason is that GPT-4 is still significantly better than everything else. Time will tell if OpenAI will be able to retain the lead in the race, though. While there's no public competing model with equal power yet, competitors are definitely much closer than they were before, and keep advancing. But, of course, GPT-5 might be another major leap.
Confirmed. I asked both Gemini and GPT4 to assist with a proto3 rpc service I'm working on. The initial prompt was well specified. Both provided nearly exactly the same proto file, which was correct and idiomatic. However, I then asked both, "Update the resource.spec.model field to represent any valid JSON object." Gemini told me to use a google.protobuf.Any type. GPT4 told me to use a google.protobuf.Struct type. Bo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only hope we're so lucky that the enshittification happens that quickly and thoroughly. It would be yet another clear demonstration that technology won't save us from our social system. It will just get us even more of it, good and hard. The utopian hype is a lie.
Technology by and large accelerates and concentrates. I like the framing that technology is obligate. It doesn't matter whether you've built a machine that will transform the world into paperclips, sowing misery on its path and decimating the community of life. Even if you refuse to use it, someone will, because it gives short term benefits. As you say, the root issue lies in the framework of co-habitation that we ar…
Is that some idea you got from Daniel Schmachtenberger? Literally the old reference I can find on the web to "technology is obligate" is https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-05/the-ride-of-ou..., which attributes it to him?
Anyway, I'm skeptical. For one, that seems to assume an anarchic social order, where anyone can make any choice they like (externalities be damned) and no one can stop them. That doesn't describe our world except maybe, sometimes, at the nation-state level between great powers.
Secondly, I think embracing that idea would mainly serve to create a permission structure for "techbros" (for lack of a better term), to pursue whatever harmful technology they have the impulse to and reject any personal responsibility for their actions or the harm they cause (e.g. exactly "It's ok for me to hurt you, because if I don't someone else will, so it's inevitable and quit complaining").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A llm is biased by design, the "open models" are no different here. OpenAI will, like any other model designer, pick and chose whatever data they want in their model and strike deals to that end. The only question is in how far this is can be viewed as ads. Here I would find a strong backslash slightly ironic, since a lot of people have called the non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; thi…
> A llm is biased by design Everything is biased. The problem is when that bias is hidden and likely to be material to your use case. These leaked deals definitely qualify as both hidden and likely to be material to most use cases whereas more random human biases or biases inherent in accessible data may not. > non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; this is an obvious alternative option A…
a) Yes, leaked information definitely qualifies as hidden, that is, prior to the most likely illegal leak (which we apparently do not find objectionable, because, hey, it's the good type of breach of contract?)
b) Anyone who strikes deals understands there is a situation where things are being discussed, that would probably not okay to be implemented in that way. Hence, the pre-sign discussion phase of the deal. Somewhat like one could have some weird ideas about a piece of code, that will not be implemented. Ah-HA!-ing everything that was at some point on the table is a bit silly.
> A problematic alternative to an alleged injustice just moves the problem, it’s not a true resolution.
The one characteristic I found that sets the people that are good to work with apart is understanding the need for a better solution, over those who (correctly but inconsequentially) declare everything to be problematic and think that to be some kind of interesting insight. It's not. Everything is really bad.
Offer something slightly less bad, and we are on our way.
> Hostile compliance is unfortunately a reality so this ought to give little comfort.
Yes, people will break the law. They are found out, eventually, or the law is found out to be bad and will be improved. No, not in 100% of the cases. But doubting this general concept that our societies rely upon whenever it serves an argument is so very lame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm creepin: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935200
This reeks of the "manic charlie smoking a cig in front of a pinboard" meme
Which of those do you take issue with as germane and credible?
I have a mountain of links that I’ve posted before and at need can link to again. These are bad people. I’ve known about Altman’s crimes for over a decade and I’ve failed to persuade Fidji (who I’ve known for 12 years) of them at any weight of evidence.
Can you share more?
A sibling has linked to the credible journalism I was alluding to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're offering an expensive service for free. Could it go any other way?
Counterpoint - I pay for my whole team to have access, shared tools, etc. we also spend a decent amount on their APIs across a number of client projects. OpenAI has a strong revenue model based on paid use
They’ll charge you money for the service and ALSO get money from advertisers. Because why shouldn’t they.
The famous “if you don’t pay you’re the product” is losing its meaning.