They are likely actually worse than other electronic learning (which is already bad) because of how human preference optimized they are, same as eating ultra processed food is easy but not very good for you.
8,510 karma · joined May 21, 2020
They are likely actually worse than other electronic learning (which is already bad) because of how human preference optimized they are, same as eating ultra processed food is easy but not very good for you.
And the “I pulled you over because you peeled out” - I mean it’s fun. Anyway, if it’s harmless I don’t really see the problem.
I also lived in Montreal and did see them there sometimes. This was always early morning when I was out running - did not see them in Toronto, Ottawa, etc under similar conditions.
Edit based on reading some other comments: I have seen lots of coyotes and foxes so maybe that explains fewer rats. I know Montreal has coyotes but I’ve never seen them there and where I was there were also squirrels everywhere suggesting fewer predators.
The article doesn’t really expand upon what having fragments copied from others means. Even if it fits the letter of the definition, on a phd thesis that may or may not be a big deal. If he’s passing off the ideas of others as his, or faking his research by using the results of others or making them up, then that’s really bad. If he’s just using phrases / wording from others to get his original points across, it looks bad but I don’t see it as a huge deal, especially 30 years out from the phd.
A PhD is supposed to be original research, if the originality or integrity is in question that’s one thing, the rest is much more pedantic, even if technically wrong.
A simple example, as a non-mathematician: I’d expect a well trained LLM to be able to solve any integral that can be solved with integration by parts. I would be much more interested to see it solve one with no know solution using some novel technique.
Obviously this doesn’t really lend itself to making a benchmark, but if something is solveable by a known technique, and the LLM has has some kind of RL training re using that technique, seeing a solution isn’t too surprising.
So I suspect that the cloud will pass on math too, initial demos get extrapolated and people get worried but in the end slop is slop and serious people aren’t getting replaced or even threatened.
The reason captchas bother me so much is they always seem to happen in the course of legitimate activities. Like I had one when trying to make a charity donation, or ordering something - I have no idea why it would be hard to distinguish such traffic as legitimate, I’m convinced it’s because I’m using a nonstandard browser, not allowing cookies, etc.
If I was trying an automation or to bulk download something or whatever, I’d take the captcha as an interesting professional challenge. When I’m trying to use someone’s services or pay them money, it’s just ridiculous friction and I generally abandon any transaction that makes me do a captcha.
Incidentally I have scraped HN and never encountered any problems, since you have an api for it
I've never seen a company punished for doing the right thing, caring for humans and providing a good work environment.
We’ll see how this goes over but I disagree. You don’t have to look hard in tech, especially a few years ago, to find groups of coddled “workers”, doing very little or at least doing what they want instead of what a business and customers want. This paradoxically ended up creating toxic work environments, and making it impossible to actually get work out of people. We’re seeing a correction now. labor-led automation produces improvements in quality, while capital-driven automation increases throughput
I don’t know if this is true, but I do think that LLMs mainly get used where their proponents don’t care (whether intentionally or through ignorance) about the quality of the output, and want to minimize work / maximize throughout. Basically whoever is pushing them is playing the hypothetical role of capitalist in his assertion.This explains the management push (ignorance) but also the user push (automating BS tasks). The common thread is that the user doesn’t have to take any responsibility for the output. This is why people don’t like having LLMs pushed on them, because for cases where they are responsible for or have to consume the output, they don’t work very well, but when it’s just something that needs to look ok at a glance and be handed off, everyone is rushing to use them.
I don’t think GANs are used much now in comparison to diffusion models, but as recently as a few years ago they were the standard way to make fake data, a la “this face does not exist”
requires real hen for fertilization and layingThat said, the ship sailed a long time ago and has nothing to do with AI (except maybe recommender system). Spotify and competitors are actual automated “radio” stations. IMO, the second worst part (after ads) is the DJ banter, and I like to just listen to music. Before Spotify my digital “radio” was a lot of mp3s and shuffle play. People older than me (or more interested) had multi-disc CD changers.
TLDR, it’s really funny seeing people get up in arms about this experiment stripping the humanity away from radio, when automatic song playing has been a thing since I believe probably before radio was invented. This is about seeing what LLMs do with autonomy on a long time scale.
Edit: in particular I don’t agree with
But if someone claims that the trend toward increasing AI capabilities will never reach some particular scary level...
One has to agree that the benchmark results are getting “scarier”, which is not automatically implied by finding more goals to optimize for