521–530 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting how it seems like MS may have been right this time? They were able to milk Office for years, and despite seeming like it might, Google didn't eat their lunch.
People still email word docs around. It’s nuts. Maybe Exchange is smart enough to intercept them and say “hey use this online one instead”? At least for intra-org..
A big red flag for me was that Sundar was prompting the model to report lots of facts that can be either true or false. We all saw the benchmark figures that they published and the results mostly showed marginal improvements. In other words, the issue of hallucination has not been solved. But the demo seemed to imply that it had. My conclusion was that they had mostly cherry picked instances in which the model happen…
These LLMs do not have a concept of factual correctness and are not trained/optimized as such. I find it laughable that people expect these things to act like quiz bots - this misunderstands the nature of a generative LLM entirely. It simply spits out whatever output sequence it feels is most likely to occur after your input sequence. How it defines “most likely” is the subject of much research, but to optimize for f…
This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…
Nadella is an all time great CEO. Pichai is an uninspired MBA-type.
I was fooled. The model release announcement said it could accept video and audio multi-modal input. I understood that there was a lot of editing and cutting, but I really believed I was looking at an example of video and audio input. I was completely impressed since it’s quite a leap to go from text and still images to “eyes and ears.” There’s even the segment where instruments are drown and music was generated. I t…
This kind of moral fraud - unethical behavior - is tolerated for some reason. It's almost like investors want to be fooled. There is no room for due diligence. They squeel like excited Taylor Swift fans as they are being lied to.
If lying helps, which can happen if there aren't large legal costs or social repercussions on brand equity, or if the lie goes undetected, then they'll lie. This is what we necessarily get from the upstream incentives. Fortunately, lying in a marketing video is fairly low on the list of ethical violations that have happened in the recent past.
We've effectively got a governance alignment problem that we've been trying to solve with regulations, taxes and social norms. How can you structure guardrails in the form of an incentive system to align companies with ethical outcomes? That's the question and it's a difficult one. This question also applies to any form of human organization, including governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to continue the analogy, if the staple gun is broken and it requires you to do more than a working (but non-existent) staple gun BUT less work than doing the affixment without the broken staple gun, you would or would not use it ?
But nobody said they wouldn't use it. You said that. You came up with this idea and then demanded other people defend it. I don't know why "critiquing the tool" is being equated to "refusing to use the tool." I don't like calling something a strawman, because I think it's an overused argument, but...I mean...
My point is that the attempt to critique it was a failure. It provided no critique.
It was incomplete at the very least -- it assigned it the label of broken, but didn't explain the implications of that. It didn't define at what level of failure it would need to be to valuable.
Additionally, I didn't indicate whether or not he would refuse to use it -- specifically because I didn't know, because he didn't say.
We all use broken tools built on a fragile foundation of imperfect precision.
This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…
I demo'd a full browser office suite in 1998 called Office Wherever (o-w.com). It used Java applets to do a lot of the more tricky functions. Shopped it around VCs. Got laughed out of all the meetings. "Companies storing their documents on the Internet?! You're out of your mind!"
This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…
>>Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Of all the things, this. I use both Google and Microsoft office products. One thing that strikes you is just how feature rich Microsoft products are. Google doesn't look like is serious about making money. I squarely blame rockstar product managers and OKRs for this. Not everything can be a 1000% profitable product built in the next quarter. A lot of thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to continue the analogy, if the staple gun is broken and it requires you to do more than a working (but non-existent) staple gun BUT less work than doing the affixment without the broken staple gun, you would or would not use it ?
I think you are missing the point. If I do use it, then my result will be a broken and defective product. How exactly is that not clear? That's the point. It might not be observable to be, but whatever I'm affixing with the staple gun will come loose because its not working right and not sinking the staples in deep enough... If I don't use it, then the tool is not used and provided no benefit...
Your CPU, right now, has known defects. It will produce the wrong outputs for some inputs. It seems to meet your definition of broken.
Do you agree with that premise ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code. Wait, is your argument honestly "it's not cheating because they just trusted the students"? There's a huge difference between demoing something as "this is what we did" vs "we didn't quite get there, but this is what we're envisioning." Edit: You all are re…
No, it’s not cheating because the ask was “something” not “some program”
In US colleges at least (only because that’s where I have personal experience…not because I believe standards are any higher or lower here), this is cheating if they led their professor to believe that it was indeed the raspberry pi sending out an email rather than someone at the back of the class.