171–180 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely, it's a tech that aims to write the most average, most likely human text.
That's not true at all. I could tell it to write like an unhinged maniac, someone who never uses contractions, or George Washington with a lisp.
Its at least passed the turing test. Cool, scary but cool./
Startup idea: online text editor that logs every keystroke and blockchains a hash of all logs every day. If you're accused of AI use, you can pull up the whole painstaking writing process and prove it's real.
Youre right, that is idiotic. Ill offer $500m for it if we go by VC standards
We're all at the mercy of the whims of imperfect people, but we just keep adding more ways to get things wrong. If feels like a step back, and people just can't stop inventing terrible things. The discourse is only "this new and also awful technology is just here to stay. In 5 years, someone will invent some other new horrible thing we'll all be at the mercy of, just we just have to get used to it." I don't have any…
I mean, I was a kid. But every new thing was cool and exciting. Now its just scams and WMDs.
Is this happening to software developers too? Being accused and fired for using AI to write their code? If not, why is it different?
Why its different:
Nobody cares who originally wrote the code as long as it works (ideally longer, rather than shorter). Software is intrinsically self-automating, so valuable skills are more along diagnosis and pattern recognition lines rather than specific skills themselves (yesteryears COBOL master could well be a JR engineer (or more likely management) at a startup). And also, people in charge of software companies have more on-hand people that may understand how AI works, and thus, not rely on such a system to the same extent (being generous to the c-suite here, we'll see shortly lol).
Regardless of whether AI detectors work or not, I worry we're reaching a new unfortunate era. While alarmists were worrying about alignment or evil AIs, the true downside of LLMs is turning out to be... AI spam. I've started seeing it everywhere: Q&A sites, forums, etc. In some places it's banned, but how do you reliably detect it? And what makes people post AI spam when there's no reward or money involved? What are…
Good, im on here too much already.
This is the dawn of a "post non-narrative prose" era. Why bother with an article describing some event or really anything that is traditionally written about in any form of article at all? In time, just the data will be released and your favorite LLM prepared with your favorite reading style will provide the mustard for your data, making it consumable. The journalism industry has failed in their mission, and nobody t…
I mean, when the whole 2nd thing is completely automated because its bar is so low anything from 2 years ago could do it, that kinda only leaves the 1st option as a business idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you, though? I thought LLMs just by virtue of how they work, are non-deterministic. Let alone if new data is added to the LLM, further retraining happens, etc. Is it possible to get the same output, 1:1, from the same prompt, reliably?
They are assuming a lot of things, like the LLM doesn't change, and that you have full control over the randomness . This might be possible if you are running the LLM locally.
And yeah I guess if you control the seed an llm would be deterministic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't regenerate the book from the ISBN. But you can generate the text from the prompt.
You can go and fetch the book from a book store using the information. Fundamentally there's not much difference between that and "fetching" the output from some model using the matching prompt. In both cases there some kind of static store of latent information that can be accessed unambiguously using a (usually) shorter input. I'm not saying the value of the returned information is equivalent, of course. But being…