Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
It’s almost doublethink, people celebrating how the Fediverse is an open protocol for sharing public discussion and then going surprised-Pikachu at the notion that public discussion might be viewed by someone the don’t want to view it.
If you don’t mean for something to be public, don’t post it on a public forum.
And yet this community seems more techno-pessimistic than even /r/technology, which is a challenge.
Indeed. And Boeing is the main contractor for it so you can be sure it won’t suffer any mishaps.
There’s others that are trying, Blue Origin has their New Shepherd rocket that is able to land, but it’s a suborbital tourism vehicle that’s basically just a toy. They’re working on a partly-reusable orbital launcher that’s like a souped up Falcon 9 but it’s still in development. Several other smaller startups are working on smaller Falcon-9-like launchers with expendable second stages, and China is building a straight up carbon-copy of the Falcon 9 and Starship. But SpaceX is the leader in this field and currently the only one who’s actually successful. Everyone is following in their wake at the moment.
Indeed, I’m surprised this dumb clickbait title didn’t literally include Elon Musk’s name like so many other “Elon Musk’s <Company Name> Does <Thing That’s Actually Normal But Sounds Bad>!” headlines.
Yes, Elon Musk has some awful views and does some awful things. Doesn’t mean everything he does is therefore bad. Henry Ford was a colossal antisemite, as another example, and did some really weird and awful things to his employees. Unfortunately some of the same personal characteristics that can lead people to be innovative industrialists can often also lead to them being assholes.
Turns out analogies are not the actual thing they’re analogizing, though. Synthetic data - when properly created and curated - has proven to be very useful and effective in training AI.
So now it’s basically people who aren’t going to use this tool complaining that other people who do want to use this tool will get to use it.
Not much incentive for them to try to satisfy the complainers, then.
So they fixed the major issues that people were complaining about. Let’s see if people therefore stop complaining.
As I understand it the corrosion is provoked by the chip’s operation, the patch reduces the voltage load which makes the corrosion less likely to happen or to advance less quickly.
They’re chasing profit too, though. “Taking a stand” means they’re advertising, trying to differentiate themselves from their competitors and draw in people who hold anti-AI views.
That will last until that segment of users becomes too small to be worth trying to base their business on.
I think it’s generally pointless, spiteful, and only harms ordinary users who might someday have found value in coming across your old posts on Reddit from a search. It doesn’t harm Reddit itself, the “value” of your individual account is very small compared to their vast archive. And they still have it, deletion just removes it from the public-facing front end. If the reason you’re deleting it is because you don’t want AI to be trained on it, that ship has long ago sailed. There are downloadable archives of Reddit floating around that it will never be deleted from.
So I wouldn’t bother.
Accountable for doing statistical analysis?
No, a summary is just a condensed version of some larger work. If the larger work contains bullshit then so can the summary, that doesn’t stop it from being a summary. As you say, a summary accurately portrays the substance of that content. In this case there was content that said Alpha Centauri was 13 km from Earth, so the summary said that too.
This is really not complicated.
Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success.
If you think it has no possibility of success, sit back and relax as AI goes away.
They absolutely cannot reliably summarize the result of searches, like this post is about
The problem is that it did summarize the result of this search, the results of this search included one of those “if the Earth was the size of a grain of sand, Alpha Centauri would be X kilometers away” analogies. It did exactly the thing you’re saying it can’t do.
Any meaningful rate of failures at all makes them massively, catastrophically damaging to humanity as a whole.
Nothing is perfect. Does that make everything a massive catastrophic threat to humanity? How have we managed to survive for this long?
You’re ridiculously overblowing this. It’s a “ha ha, looks like AI made a whoopsie because I didn’t understand that I actually asked it to do” situation. It’s not Skynet coming to convince us to eat cyanide.
And this is all completely ignoring the obscene energy costs associated with making web searches complete and utter dogshit.
Of course it’s ignoring that. It’s not real.
You realize that energy costs money? If each web search cost an “obscene” amount, how is Microsoft managing to pay for it all? Why are they paying for it? Do you think they’ll continue paying for it indefinitely? It’d be a completely self-solving problem.
I have genuinely found LLMs to be useful in many contexts. I use them to brainstorm and flesh out ideas for tabletop roleplaying adventures, to write song lyrics, to write Python scripts to do various random tasks. I’ve talked with them to learn about stuff, and verified that they were correct by checking their references. LLMs are demonstrably capable of these things. I demonstrated it.
Go ahead and refrain from using them yourself if you really don’t want to, for whatever reason. But exclaiming “no it doesn’t!” In the face of them actually doing the things you say they don’t is just silly.
Then go ahead and put “science questions” into one of the areas that you don’t use LLMs for. That doesn’t make them useless in general.
I would say that a more precise and specific restriction would be “they’re not good at questions involving numbers.” That’s narrower than “science questions” in general, they’re still pretty good at dealing with the concepts involved. LLMs aren’t good at math so don’t use them for math.
Your comment is simply counterfactual. I do indeed find LLMs to be useful. Saying “no you don’t!” Is frankly ridiculous.
I’m a computer programmer. Not directly experienced with LLMs themselves, but I understand the technology around them and have written program that make use of them. I know what their capabilities and limitations are.
But at least that crappy bug-riddled code has soul!