> Instead of simply searching for one of the numerous font-dumps that exist on the Internet
On the other hand I enjoy reading about all the things people are recreating with LLMs, since it gives an idea of what's not just possible, but actually practical, in case I ever need something similar.
(This may be a short-lived preference though, if it gets to the point where just about anything within reason is practical.)
It's one thing to use an LLM to create something new, but to get it to regurgitate an imperfect version of something that already exists and is easily found, and then have to spend time fixing it, hardly seems like a good use.
Where do you draw the line on that attitude? Do you not care about global warming because in your lifetime, you're probably not going to experience an unsurvivable wet bulb temperature where you happen to live?
I draw the line at things that directly impact my net worth.
> Do you not care about global warming because you're probably not going to experience an unsurvivable wet bulb temperature where you happen to live in your lifetime?
Correct. I don’t care about global warming or climate change.
Nothing worse than a person who takes for granted all the hard work others put into society while smugly bragging about how they don't care about anyone but themselves.
If I decide you're having a negative impact on my net worth, can I come to your home and shoot you in the head?
It seems we need a remedial class in morality here, where we work up to you understanding the golden rule. But perhaps you're not capable of understanding that. Is euthanizing you then the only option?
To be clear: I'm an extremely experienced software developer. I use AI daily. I'm currently working on training a DNN that's used in production by enterprise companies around the globe.
But there's absolutely no doubt that AI is being deployed as a weapon by the capitalist class against everyone else, and that's only going to amplify and get much, much worse. The issue is not necessarily the technology itself. The issue is how society permits it to be used.
> I think they are lying, and I think they are hurting people. I think they're genuinely hurting people.
That hurting of people is part of the war that I mentioned. The rest of the video focuses quite heavily on this general issue. It gives specific examples, but they're representative.
Seems hyperbolic to me. The video is about them "hurting people" by convincing foolish CEOs to replace their workers with AI (and the CEOs and investors are also being hurt by this). You're talking about some scenario where faking AI competence makes AI somehow actually competent.
The reason it seems suspicious is that it's phrased in a way that's oriented towards humans. I haven't tested this, but I suspect you'd get similar results if you said something like "orient your response to that of a growth hacker." Either one is likely to have the desired effect on the stochastic result.
> The question is not whether it is a good model, it is whether the model can be trusted to not act intentionally maliciously against certain topics or certain users.
We absolutely know that we can't trust the American model not to do that - it's "by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs" - so it's not clear what the claim really is.
Do you believe there's some meaningful benefit to the American VC funding model in this case? It's not clear to me what you're trying to say or why you think it's an important distinction.
You're right, but the bias in the US certainly persists. "China = bad" is an assumption that many people still make without any self-reflection about the ways in which the US is now at least as bad.
On the other hand I enjoy reading about all the things people are recreating with LLMs, since it gives an idea of what's not just possible, but actually practical, in case I ever need something similar.
(This may be a short-lived preference though, if it gets to the point where just about anything within reason is practical.)
reply