GenericPoster

This is happening at my workplace and it's incredibly annoying. We get support tickets asking us to troubleshoot AI written scripts. The funny thing is that most of the time, it would be faster for the customer to tell us what they want to do in plain english and have us make it for them. Hell, if they make an honest attempt, we can point them in the right direction and teach them.

It's frustrating because we're bundling this shitty AI with our product so we're just making more work for ourselves. Then there's the push from leadership to use more AI...

I don't think it's making people antisocial though, people just like easy solutions to their problems. We're giving them what seems like an easy solution. But it's easy for them, not easy for the reviewers.

Single text file a year in n++. I Try to do it once a week and do end of month and end of year analysis. Usually I end up writing more and that's fine.

My requirements are local only and fast.

Start with the simplest tool you have available and go from there. If it becomes a habit and you have certain pain points then you can always switch. But trying to find the PerfectTool_TM before you're even journaling feels like putting the cart before the horse.

The world is a vastly easier place to live in when you're knowledgeable. Being knowledgeable opens doors that you didn't even know existed. If you're both using the same AGI tool, being knowledgeable allows you to solve problems within your domain better and faster than an amateur. You can describe your problems with more depth and take into considerations various pros and cons.

You're also assuming that AGI will help you or us. It could just as easily only help a select group of people and I'd argue that this is the most likely outcome. If it does help everybody and brings us to a new age, then the only reason to learn will be for learning's sake. Even if AI makes the perfect novel, you as a consumer still have to read it, process it and understand it. The more you know the more you can appreciate it.

But right now, we're not there. And even if you think it's only 5-10y away instead of 100+, it's better to learn now so you can leverage the dominant tool better than your competition.

I get that but it just overshadows the technical stuff in nearly every post. And it's just low hanging fruit to have a discussion over. But you're probably right with that comic, I spend so much time reading about ai stuff.

The talk of "safety" and harm in every image or language model release is getting quite boring and repetitive. The reasons why it's there is obvious and there are known workarounds yet the majority of conversations seems to be dominated by it. There's very little discussion regarding the actual technology and I'm aware of the irony of mentioning this. Really wish I could filter out these sorts of posts.

Hopefuly it dies down soon but I doubt it. At least we don't have to hear garbage about "WHy doEs opEn ai hAve oPEn iN thE namE iF ThEY aReN'T oPEN SoURCe"

> Whether they compete with a cloud AI time will tell.

But they're not competing with cloud AI. Why would a person need to go to the cloud to give you a reminder or download an app? They're competing against the current local assistant, Siri.

Large models are great but they can't fit on 8 or 16gb of ram. And that's a very big deal.

Did you only read the title? Because the abstract gives you a pretty good idea of what they mean when they say reason. It's pretty easy to understand. No need to immediately call bullshit just because of a minor semantic disagreement.

>ThEY DON'T tHiNk. They'rE JuSt STochAStiC pARrotS. It'S not ReAL AGi.

It doesn't even matter if these claims are true or not. They're missing the point of the conversation and the paper. Reason is a perfectly valid word to use. So is think. If you ask it a question and then follow up with 'think carefully' or 'explain carefully'. You'll get the same response.

inb4 AcTUALLy LlMS Can'T do aNYtHIng CaRefUlly BECaUse pRogRAms ARen'T caRefUl

Do you know something we don't? If so, don't be shy and share it with the class.

More seriously, only time will tell if today's event will have any significance. Even if OpenAI somehow goes bankrupt, given enough time, I doubt the history books will talk about its decline. Instead they would talk about its beginning, on how they were the first to introduce LLMs to the world, the catalyst of a new era.

Ah yes, because all those normal people will be able to run these powerful models on the devices that they currently own. Such a naive take.

The rich will ALWAYS get their piece of the pie, and once they've had their fill, we'll be left fighting for the crumbs and thanking them for their generosity.

AI won't solve world hunger, it will make millions of people jobless. It won't stop wars, it will be used as a tool for the elite to spread propaganda. The problems that plague society today are ones that technology (that has existed for decades) can fix but greed prevents it.

No, I'm making fun of the original comment that compared gpt3.5 and gpt4 by saying its only a difference of .5

It's an absolute absurd way to compare things and incredibly reductive.

A 44 rubix cube is barely harder to solve than a 33 rubix cube. After all, it's only a difference of 1.

> If we were attempting to put someone into some sort of Matrix like reality simulator but we lacked the technology to provide a perfect simulation what level of simulation would be 'good enough' that a human would consider it reality and be able to develop into something we could relate to?

Have you tried VR before? You really don't need perfect simulation to be fooled. Good enough is already here, albeit for a short amount of time.

> are you learning or just being indoctrinated?

This is such a strange comment and is so removed from my lived experience that I question whether its even real. Where is this indoctrination happening? The vast majority of my classes were dedicated to learning the subject and there was rarely any room for deviation. Especially not deviation that turned to religion or politics. Even when discussing religious texts in my philosophy classes, it was through the lens of an academic. The same way that we discussed plato and aristotle. There was open discussion and if the conversation turned aggressive or wasn't going anywhere it was quickly shut down. We all had a curriculum to follow and certain debates can be taken anywhere or happen outside of class. If you wanted to challenge your professors, it was about your grade and that was usually done during office hours. Professors are humans and they all have their quirks but I didn't experience anything out of the norm while talking to them or hearing about their interaction with others.

As for challenging each other, I think we did more learning from each other than anything else and our opinions did change over time but that's not indoctrination, just part of growing up.

You say you went to university 20 years ago but did you end up going back afterwards? If so, what are the differences you've personally noticed?

I don't see that OPs take as cynical, just realistic. Time and time again, companies, especially major ones have shown that they will always prioritize making money over everything else. The sooner people accept this, the better.

People have ideals, companies do not. The people employed by those companies have ideals but its beyond foolish to think that those ideals would be prioritized over profit.

Businesses don't have a conscience, people do, but that doesn't mean that the business will do the right thing. Sure, the ideals of the person and the ones the company reports can match up, but it's only through luck and not out of a sense of the greater good.

> Since when has advertisement even implied endorsement of nearby content?

It's not an endorsement. People make associations all the time consciously or not. There are obviously positive and negative associations. And if it's within your power to reduce the negative associations which might impact the perception of your product then why won't you do it? Advertising is primarily an appeal towards emotion not logic. It's manipulative by nature.

I don't know what I'm saying that's so unreasonable.

Also, I can't control whether some homeless person pees next to my billboard, but if my competitors also have billboards in the area then I may still come out on top. But if I can move my weight to move those homeless people elsewhere, preferably to my competitors billboards then I'll do it. This isn't a moral argument.

What an absolutely deranged comment. Putting aside the fact that you're going up to bat for some random guy that you don't personally know. Instead of listening to the testimonies, let it go to court and then make a judgement. But the thought of preemptively supporting a stranger that's been accused of rape is actually insane.

And if news outlets don't want to work with him then they can just stop inviting him to things. They don't need to accuse him of anything. Just stop giving him roles and he's out of the spotlight. He'll fade away into obscurity.

Take your meds and get off the internet for a bit.

>YouTube was popular and had very little moderation.

Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular.

I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if that means embracing censorship or decrying it then they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so....

That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already existing platform that I've visited has been complete shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with the normal folk.

I appreciate the idealism but that's an incredibly naive take. The idea of "just walk" or "just ride a bike" or "just move" or "just grow your own food" is nonsensical when talking about US infrastructure. Humans have limits and those that are at the bottom of the economic status, the ones who would be affected the most don't need another self imposed hurdle. Their lives are already hard enough as it is.

There was a solution and it involved beating the corporations into submission before they ever amassed such a massive amount of power. This idea of endless growth needed to be stopped and society needed to transition to a more sustainable way of living. But it's honestly too late. Corporations are made up of people but those people aren't in control.

The most impactful action that a single person can take is to not have children. Let the population drop and kill all demand. Thankfully cooperations are making this choice easier than ever.

Good feature, I might actually start using chrome again if recipes are summarized how I expect them to. Generally speaking, there's already a problem with people only reading the titles and basing their opinion of off that. Hopefully this will encourage people to read more, since it will be significantly shorter than the actual article. This won't affect the people who care about the topic.

I'm not really worried about bias, since from my experience, summarization software will inherit the bias of the creator. Sure, it's behind generative AI, which can introduce more bias but it's not like the original article is hidden. No one is forced to use it.

Can you give some examples and point out the subtleties?

You're being a bit hyperbolic, but that sounds like an education problem. It's not a cooperations job to teach you how to look at sources. Besides, most people already get their news from second hand sources or worse. If hallucination issues are ever solved and the models learn to cite sources properly then it will have a lot more value but I doubt it will get any worse than it is right now.

And search engines aren't going anywhere. If the model gives an answer that you aren't sure about, you do a search on your favorite search engine, refine your search or switch search engines. Even for the tech illiterate people using google, they can just go to page 2 and they'll eventually find what they are looking for.

There's never been a time in history than right now where you can find like minded people easily with fringe interests and opinions. And as long as the internet exists that's not going to change. This future you are painting where information is being withheld doesn't exist. It doesn't matter how many book burnings there are, once the information is out. It's out for good.

> Twitter is "just a microblogging service", and yet pushed social norms around so much on certain topics that people from a decade or more ago would be surprised at the impact.

With every technological advancement or major world event, social norms move around. This is nothing new, before social media, it was the cell phone, before that it was the computer, or the war on drugs or the cold war or world war II. It's just social media's turn to take the blame for the "degradation of family values" or whatever the hot talking point is.

> It's now considered safer to say nothing online for the fear of your message being weaponised against you 10 years from now because of changes to moral values, so many people just aren't their authentic selves online any more

That's how it's always been. Nothing goes away from the internet. If you posted questionable content online under your real identity and a potential employer finds it and decides not to hire you, well, that's the price you pay for not being anonymous. Kids were often told to be careful of what they put online for at least the past 20 years. If thing X is no longer acceptable in current time frame and you said thing X years ago and it's now been brought up. You can either clarify your point if your opinions haven't changed, ignore it, express regret for making a comment on thing X and move on with your life. This is a personal accountability problem, not a societal problem. Although, I personally think that anonymity should be the default on the internet but that bridge has already been burned. Regarding people not being authentic in a large public forum, I mean, what do you expect? The entire world can see what they're posting. It's not unreasonable to show off the best parts of your life, the parts you are most proud of and to hide the struggles. Look for smaller private communities if you want real human connection.

> Another example - when I was using a voice assistant a lot, I eventually gained an instinct to call out to it as if it were second nature - and if the voice assistant is not under my control (which it wasn't), that has serious privacy repercussions, which can change my behaviour further.

You do know that you don't have to use the voice assistant right? This sounds like a you problem to be honest. It's common knowledge that these voice assistants are a privacy nightmare. Even tech illiterate people that I've met know about it but they make the trade off for convenience. It's not what I would do but its their choice.

> Another example: Ukrainian war footage on YouTube is now "inappropriate", even though it used to be widespread at first. As a result, creators stopped discussing it, or moved that content to paid platforms. As a result, the world's largest video library has a gaping hole right where this kind of content should be available for historical use.

So this is the only somewhat decent example you posted but youtube isn't a library, it's a video sharing platform. I will admit, I'm ignorant on the whole ukraine topic. But war is "inappropriate" to say the least and I can see why companies wouldn't want their advertisements to be associated with such horrific events, even if it is in a positive light. And if companies don't like it, then youtube won't push it to people's feed. I would argue it's good that they have moved to different platforms, the content is now more resilient to being taken down. And just for a quick sanity check, searching for ukraine brings up all sorts of videos. Press conferences, combat footage, people's reactions. So what exactly is being hidden?

What a terrible analogy. First of all, the two best shoe companies are selling the SAME shoes to everybody, they aren't denying you service. You just don't like the color that it's being sold in. You willingly choose to wear wooden clogs and then complain that they won't sell you the shoes that they are selling to everybody else. The entitlement not just in this comment but in the entire thread is ridiculous.

Secondly, they are private companies selling non-essential goods. Using their models isn't a right. If they want to lobotomize it and make it as pg13 as possible, that is their right. They aren't doing anything against the law in regards to discrimination. If you want to use their toys, you have to play by their rules. Yes they have the best toys but you don't get to cry about it and force them to change their rules. It's such a simple concept and it's hardly new.

It's a chatbot. A very advanced one with incredible capabilities but a chatbot nonetheless. What irreparable damage to society and culture are you alluding to? Any specific examples would be nice as I don't see where all this doom and gloom is coming from.

But you are an adult and you don't have to support or pay for any of these products if you don't want to. It's simply a design choice. The same as if someone would choose python over c++. Maybe by your standards it's a poor choice but if it's making them money then there's no problems. There is a demand for uncensored models but its just not profitable.

>pampering the bottom 5% whiny dregs of society

There's really no need to be so hostile. Do you complain that disney doesn't make hardcore porn too? Like it or not claude and all these other ai's that are censored do have a place in the world. And they do serve more than the "bottom 5%". At the bare minimum they serve more than the bottom 5% when it comes to capital which is definitely more important from a company pov. There are plenty of uncensored models out there to play with. They aren't quite there yet but they're decent enough and slowly getting better. I highly doubt they will ever have the same reach as claude, chatgpt or bard. The barrier of entry is too high for the normal person and even for some technical people. I'd love to be proven wrong but my money is on the multi billion dollar cooperations.

And your comment regarding the moral policing that wasn't there in the early days of the internet is just ridiculous. Putting aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with having a safe space where you don't have to see or read things you don't want to. The internet was a terrible place, it still is but the bad places have gotten much smaller. It didn't grow to what it is now because of all the trash that was being spewed out, it grew despite it.

The only thing I don't agree with is them trying to use the government to prevent innovation but other than that I see no issues with what they're doing.

Your frustration is understandable, believe me, I get it. I've tried to wrangle many AI to answer my relatively tame questions without the positivity bias and warnings that my actions may cause some sort of imagined harm. But I just make note of that behavior and move on. These policies the companies have will NEVER change as long as they keep making money. Always vote with your wallet and your time.

Really fun game. From a visibility standpoint, I would recommend improving the visibility of the notebook. Once you're deep into it and a lot of boxes are filled, it becomes harder to keep track of checks and crosses. Native dark mode would be nice to have as well.

Another nice to have feature, quick clearing the notebook would be nice. I didn't need it this time and I guess refreshing the page does it. but it also closes the clues.

Gameplay wise, I would like it if you were more explicit about how people travel from room to room and how long they spend in each room. It's still solvable but I can definitely see how people would struggle to understand.

All this being said, really great job on the site and the mystery. I absolutely love it and look forward to playing it more.

I am and in general. I've bought and used android devices that haven't received updates for at least 3-7 years. It's a phone. If you can make calls and text, it's already doing it's job. If you have a device that regularly receives security updates then it's up to you to download it but the idea of getting rid of a functioning device just because its no longer receiving security updates is ridiculous. Especially since these devices often get sent to developing countries. The entire security theatre for consumer devices is incredibly overblown. Sure there was a time where viruses and malware ran rampant, but those times have passed but companies don't make money if they don't sell new devices so their incentives and yours don't align.

For computers, it depends but as long as you're not downloading sketchy shit and have an adblocker then you're fine.

And once again, all of this applies as long as you're a nobody, which is at least 70% of the population. Those who don't work in government, medical, aren't businesses etc.

So why do you need the latest android version and why long term support?

If you are a nobody, there isn't a need to pay for the "latest and greatest". Security updates are a meme and just a way to add more bloat. Don't download apk's from unknown sources, use an adblocker and that's 99% of all attack vectors closed.

That only leaves pre-installed bloatware, a legitimate issue that can be solved with a few steps. The phone doesn't matter but get something android 10 or higher, their selective permissions are nice but you can go as low as android 6 without too many issues. But you might have app compatibility problems.

During phone setup, don't immediately connect to the internet.

If you can uninstall the apps do that. Otherwise, force stop and clear data of every installed app that you don't think you will ever use. As long as the apps don't open or take up ram or cpu cycles then the phone is functionally 'bloat free'

Remove all of the permissions that don't make sense. Your calendar doesn't need access to your microphone or even contacts.

Turn off all settings that even hint at telemetry including locations.

Once this is done, you can connect to the internet. Download fdroid through the browser and look for a local VPN that is capable of blocking access to apps and has a decent permissions menu. Get that configured and then you are good to go. The local vpn will almost certainly break things the first time you use it. But you can just tweak it and as long as you aren't installing any new apps very often you won't have any problems. Stick with open source apps as much as you can.

And only update Apps when they break or if there is a feature you really want. Don't actually do anything important on your phone like banking but if you have a browser with adblock then that's fine but keep it minimal.

I like this method because it's phone agnostic. I don't have to settle for a pixel or another phone that I need to get root on. If this sounds like too much and you don't want to flash a new OS, then just get an iphone.

The intentions weren't bad and the 'outcomes we are now observing' aren't bad either. Those changes were a net positive on society. There is still more work that needs to be done so that both boys AND girls have the same opportunities in school and have the freedom to pursue it without judgement. If some boys/men feel that a level playing field is setting them up to fail then I have zero sympathy, society doesn't need more second class citizens.

And the notion that boys are being set up to fail, especially by the school system is just ridiculous. In this day and age, students can post their questions and answers online. Any bias in grading can be quickly found out and if the issue is as broad and systemic as you are claiming then this will be incredibly trivial to prove. There would be millions of students complaining.