541–550 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selection pressure is the evolution police.
It would be fair to compare it to selective breeding, rather than natural selection. The flip side of rejecting usage is promoting neologisms. We can do both things deliberately, I see no rule saying that language is only allowed to evolve naturally. A reasonable criticism would be that trying to change it on purpose makes for a lot of unnecessary fuss, but we can be moderate about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?
"US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subve…
The AI fever dream of unbounded training and inference is ending and reality is settling in. Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model of the AI players with their focus on code, as far as I can tell, but it still won't be enough. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but even when I am a paying customer my data is taken as gratuity and used (+ spread around!) in extremely opaque ways. I am tired of it. H…
>Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model Is this a joke? Anthropic burned $5.6 billion in 2024 and is expected to lose about $3 billion this year and it's reasonable business model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41058194
That's not what I asked for as it's not relevant. The claim was made that the models are "suffering", at this exact moment, because they have been recursively feeding themselves, RIGHT now. I want evidence the current models are "suffering" right now, and I want further evidence that suggests this suffering is due to recursive data ingestion. Some year old article with no relevance to today talking about hypothetical…
> what's the latest year of data you're trained on
> ChatGPT said: My training goes up to April 2023.
There's a reason they're not willing to update the training corpus even with GPT-5.
> Some year old article with no relevance to today
The current models are based on training even older so I guess you should disregard those too if you're choosing to judge things purely based on their age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand how...humanity works?! Is this deliberate parody? Abuse of medical data is just the tip of the iceberg here and, at least in the states, privatized healthcare presents all sorts of for-profit pricing abuse scenarios let alone nasty scenarios for social coercion.
You know little about me, so it's better to assume less, no? My personal experience with medical data specifically is, that I would have been harmed by obstacles to data sharing that the UK medical system has in place, having not been familiar with computers and tech enough to anticipate the ways lack of data sharing will lead to outcomes undesirable to me. I wrote about that in a comment here https://news.ycombinato…
I dealt with some of that while being a foreign national working in Düsseldorf a few years back.
Medical care is definitely screwed up in the states, but getting my basic test results and emailing my doctor has always been a straightforward and rapid comms loop.
Am I the only one who finds the branding and privacy policies around these AI services (possibly deliberately) confusing? For example Anthropic have an Anthropic Console that they appear to consider quite distinct from Claude.ai. Do these share a privacy policy and related settings? How do either of these fit in with the named plans like Pro and Max? What are you actually paying for when you give them money for the v…
Generally if you are not paying full price for something (in this case paying API rates) you are covering the additional cost with your data. This is true for pretty much all modern services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This change didn't grant access to your old chats and can be opted out. Good job you overreacted without reading.
For now. Once this settles in they will change the terms again, with no opt-out option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick with some really enthusiastic marketers. We don't need them.
Under the current system we apparently do since Chatgpt is now by far and away the busiest psychiatrist in world history. I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the holes LLMs are fulfilling as unnecessary. The only thing "necessary" is food water and shelter by some measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs can and do sometimes regurgitate parts of training data verbatim - this has been demonstrated many times on things ranging from Wikipedia articles to code snippets. Yes, it is not particularly likely for that damning private email of yours to be memorized, but if you throw a dataset with millions of private emails onto a model, it will almost certainly memorize some of them, and nobody knows what exact sequence…
That's a consideration, for sure. But given the LLM-s have not got the ground truth, everything is controlled hallucination, then - if the LLM tells you an imperfect version of my email or chat, you can never be sure if what the LLM told you is true, or not. So maybe you don't gain that much extra knowledge about me. For example, you can reasonably guess I'm typing this on the computer, and having coffee too. So if y…