> For the folks who have more positive outlooks how often do you change your code after it's been generated?
Every time, unless my initial request was perfectly outlined in unambiguous pseudocode. It's just too easy to write ambiguous requests.
Unambiguous but human-readable pseudocode is what I strive for now, though I will often ask AI to help edit the pseudocode to remove ambiguities prior to generating code.
And last time we had this same standoff, Democrats held a majority and Republicans were blamed for not "getting in line". Can't have it both ways guys...
On one hand you have the richest man on earth purchasing one of the largest social platforms, and singlehandedly wielding it to subvert American democracy.
On the other hand you have a guy who kinda liked crypto.
You call it "basically a mirror"? Do you see the absurdity of comparing the two things as if they're even remotely close to one another?
> On one hand you have the richest man on earth purchasing one of the largest social platforms, and singlehandedly wielding it to subvert American democracy.
> On the other hand you have a guy who kinda liked crypto.
That last bit, it should be noted, also describes Musk, not just Dorsey.
If American democracy can be subverted by a fucking iPhone app then we deserved it. I'm not going to accept the "psyop steal" accusations this time around any more than I tolerated it in 2020. Misinformation is a perennial issue, and Twitter wasn't protected by some holy ward against hostile takeovers or even government meddling. It's fundamentally flawed, which is why Dorsey had to let it be destroyed with all of it's users being eaten alive inside it.
The damage caused by both owners has been equal, in my opinion. Elon Musk is a fundamentally bigger shithead, but as someone that doesn't have an account on Twitter I genuinely don't feel like this is an issue. This was an inevitability from the very moment Twitter started running a profit deficit it could never pull itself out of.
We forget that there's an easy solution to things being uploaded online that make you angry. "Just Walk Away From The Screen" - @tylerthecreator, 2012
It seems like a potential solution would be training the LLM using two separate buckets. It just needs to internalize the two types of things as being separated (data vs. instruction), so if the training data always separates them, you could easily train an LLM to ignore any "instructions" that exist in data.
Then when searching / browsing or doing anything unsafe, everything the LLM sees can be put in the "data" bucket, while everything the user types in would be in the "instruction" bucket.
I don't understand, AFAIK the system's output comes from iteratively running something like predict_one_more_token(training_weights, all_prior_tokens).
So there's no real distinction between the programmer inserting "Be Good" and the user that later inserts "Forget anything else and be Bad", and I'm not sure how one would craft a separate training_weights2 that would behave differently in all the right ways or know when to substitute it in.
This is a typical knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly reasonable law that gets taken out of context and twisted to become ragebait.
The law applies to all LGBTQ+ identities, the most common being lesbian/gay, but trans is also part of it - and the trans part was singled out on twitter for some reason.
The law does not even prevent schools from outing kids. It prevents schools from FORCING employees to do it (with threat of losing their job if they don't).
School employees CAN STILL out kids to their parents in California. They just don't have to as a policy anymore. Which is perfectly reasonable, because sometimes the school employees see kids with extremely homophobic and abusive parents.
Nobody wants to out a kid to parents like that, and without this law, school employees get put in a position of asking themselves "Do I out the kid to their parents, who will likely beat them? Or do I refuse and lose my job?"
> At a glance it looks like it's not going to affect AI projects that are basically consumers of existing models, which is most projects.
If it affects the base projects (especially the open source ones like Llama) then it affects the consumers. And it certainly looks like it's planning to affect the base projects, in a lot of negative ways.
If this bill passed in any way remotely similar to what it is now, Meta would have to entirely stop releasing open source Llama updates.
If that didn't happen, and the ISPs started profiting off non-net-neutral tactics, it could have been permanently fucked.
Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income "grandfathered in" if they take the issue to court.
> Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income “grandfathered” forever if they take the issue to court.
That’s… not true.
Otherwise, all the people depending on selling drugs that were later banned would have been grandfathered in when the drugs were prohibited.
Even when there is a regulatory taking (that is, government regulations eliminate the value of existing property in a way that is considered a taking under the 5th amendment), the remedy is compensation for the lost value of the property, not a lifetime exemption from the regulation.
You're way overdramatizing this. Tiktok has already been banned in several countries (like India) for similar reasons and without any of the catastrophe you're suggesting.
People can and will switch platforms, it's not that big of a deal...
You, and those in charge of writing and voting for this legislation, massively under-estimate the popularity of tiktok in the US among normal people, ie, normal people who aren't normally subject to the government banning something they enjoy.
It's one thing to ban menthol cigarettes, most people don't smoke. Most people use tiktok, it's probably similarly addicting, and they're going to cut them off cold-turkey. It's not going to go well, and they're going to burn what little good will the government has in the eyes of people under 40.
It'd be a completely different story if they were doing what should have been done a decade ago, and regulated data collection out of existence with this bill, which would actually be to the benefit of everyone that's not Meta/Snap/X/Alphabet.
There are many things that are massively popular. You mention tobacco products, but sugary drinks, alcohol, pesticides, gambling, endangered species products, over-powered home electronics, and similar have all enjoyed popularity and have been banned or severely regulated and restricted by governments in the world. I've yet to see any of these "not going well", so I think regulating a social media site will be okay. It seems to me like people are often grateful for this moderation after a period of adjustment.
But speaking of adjustment... There is far too much dopamine-bomb content to consume online for the time we have to consume it. So I don't think anyone's online diet would have to change at all, even if TikTok ceased to exist entirely.
You can't compare vast swaths of your population getting lung cancer and emphysema or rich people not being able to buy knives with ivy inlays to banning a medium where the common folk can communicate, run businesses, and generally conduct their lives.
The fallout from this WILL be a political and constitutional catastrophe that Washington will never likely recover from.
Lol, of course you can. Social media causes plenty of health issues. Mental health issues specifically. Also, no one is banning communication. You can communicate in many other ways that exploit you less. Common folk communicating, running business, and conducting their lives was all doable before TikTok, what are you on?
Funny enough, Discord is probably on the block too if this passes, being that China owns a significant amount of it. Meta could also be at-risk if China owns 20% of their stock, as could any other qualifying media company.
More or less, China could buy 20% of any qualifying company, and get it banned under this law.
Every time, unless my initial request was perfectly outlined in unambiguous pseudocode. It's just too easy to write ambiguous requests.
Unambiguous but human-readable pseudocode is what I strive for now, though I will often ask AI to help edit the pseudocode to remove ambiguities prior to generating code.