maplethorpe

Humans are unavailable from time to time also.

It seems like they were correct, to me.

Yours is the first from the top to mention this. You might want to consider the physical location of your comment before telling people to read the thread. We could do without the rudeness, too.

Can you summarise? I only reached your comment after scrolling past all the others and I still don't have the answer.

Is the new data that models are more useful for coding than they once were?

I wouldn't be surprised if they had already, internally. An OpenAI employee tweeted today that Codex has achieved "escape velocity" and is now improving rapidly. Make of that what you will.

Couldn't he have just asked ChatGPT if it was correct? Why do we still feel the need to loop in a human?

I find that adding "don't make any mistakes" helps.

How do you know you'd learn nothing from it?

> That's just what progress in tech is. Without it, we'd still be riding horses and writing letters with ink. Sure that accelerated fraud and misuse too

The original argument was about whether these tools had accelerated fraud and misuse, or whether not much had changed because people could just do the same thing with photoshop before. You and others were playing down the impact of AI. It sounds like we now both agree they have accelerated fraud and misuse.

> And your grandkids will be better at certain things than you too. That's just what progress in tech is.

You're misunderstanding my argument. I was pointing out that a large shift has happened that has enabled deception where it was not possible before, not lamenting the loss of a job that I don't do anymore. I have nothing against the progress of technology. But I do think we should think carefully about how we implement it.

> AI has merely slightly lowered the bar

I guess we're not going to agree on just how far that bar has fallen. Learning Photoshop as a teen got me my first job. The only reason I had one at all was because most people couldn't do a very convincing job of it. Now even my mom, a person who struggles to open her email, can do a better photoshop than me.

Are there any companies that aren't AI-pilled at this point?

I'm not too young. I can't remember if I thought it was real at the time, but if I did, I give myself a pass since I was probably viewing it on a 15 inch CRT at 1024x768.

Because we're talking about the ease of Photoshopping a wolf into a scene, I think it's also worth pointing out that floating objects are a lot easier to work with than grounded objects, since cast shadows and bounce lighting are less of an issue. Having said that, it would still require some basic skill to achieve the WTC image which I think you're discounting. You'd need a working knowledge of layers, masks, and the lasso tool, which already would have placed it out of reach for most people at the time. Online resources were much more scarce, so I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a hobbyist photographer or graphic designer. It definitely wouldn't have been achievable in a few minutes for the average person, and doing the same thing with a wolf would have been far more difficult, and well outside the realm of possibility for anyone who wasn't an expert.

If you make a hundred dollars in 0.1 seconds, you could say your annualized revenue is $100 / 0.1 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 = -$30 billion.

That said, most people would use a monthly or quarterly period to estimate ARR. I'm not sure what Anthropic used. Probably monthly.

They released a system card talking about how powerful it was. I don't think OpenAI did that with GPT 2.

Creating a photorealistic mashup in Photoshop, without AI, takes a lot of skill. Just getting the shadows looking correct takes enough skill in itself, and that's only part of it.

Have you used Photoshop before? You come across as commenting on something you don't understand.

Isn't the technology that enabled the deception noteworthy? Presumably this person wouldn't have been able to do this before AI.

Hypothetically, if a hacking tool was released that let non-technical people hack into sensitive databases, and then a journalist wrote the headline "local man hacks IRS", without any mention of the tool, wouldn't that be a bit irresponsible, to purposely leave that information out?

I believe they've stated that it would be too dangerous to release.

I think the unfortunate fact is that most jobs in the world do not require accuracy, so an inaccurate result has a negligible impact over an accurate one.

I used to feel job safety in the knowledge that AI labs weren't likely to solve the hallucination problem. Then it dawned on me that they don't need to — they just need to reduce our collective expectations.

> Side projects are typically time constrained - if AI saves you time, why wouldn't you use it?

It depends what your goals are. All of my side projects were started because I wanted to learn something. Using a "skip to the end" button wouldn't really make sense for me.

I know on its face this looks like stealing, but this would likely fall under fair use, since the original work is being transformed.

I didn't realise messages even had a delete button. I'm going to reply here so I can check.

edit: you're right, there's a delete button.

I tried setting showdead=yes but two comments I remember seeing earlier today (as replies to one of my comments) are still gone. Does anyone what else might have happened to them?

I've seen anti-AI comments here disappear within minutes of posting. I'm honestly surprised to see one at the top of this thread.

What causes comments to disappear? Is that what flagging does?

> I and the people I work with are using agents to learn new topics so fast.

I'm a person who loves learning but I don't really understand this claim. My brain quickly reaches a saturation point when learning new topics. I need to leave and come back multiple times until I begin to understand, but this seems to me to be a normal part of the process. It's the struggle that forms the connections in my brain.

Being spoon-fed information isn't the same as learning, to me. Are you also using AI to test you on your new knowledge? Does it administer these tests periodically? Or are you just reviewing notes and saying to yourself "I know this now"?

How are you ensuring you've learned anything at all?

AI has helped me rediscover my love of coding. It helps me write my emails for me, puts together my shopping list, and gives me advice on how to structure my day. AI tells me what to do. I don't have to fear my choices anymore, because AI makes the choices for me.

Once Mythos is available to business customers, it should radically improve security across the entire web. Imagine if everyone was able to pipe their codebase through Mythos before deployment. We honestly may be on the verge of a bug-free internet.

Could this be Apple's chance to finally stop dragging its feet and integrate AI deeply into its OS?

That's because it would be too dangerous to release.

There isn't really a good alternative for After Effects, despite its flaws. There are other motion graphics tools, but they're usually missing enough functionality that you eventually go crawling back to Adobe.

Now that software development is apparently solved, can someone please build a GPU-accelerated version of After Effects? Every motion designer in the world would make the switch over night.

> "It does X for you" is the point of many technologies. You still require knowledge to work around it.

When running water replaced the need to pump water out of the ground yourself, were people urged to "learn faucets"? You kind of just need to twist a knob and water comes out, right?

Maybe there was an intermediary stage where running water was slightly more complicated and there were more steps to learn, but devoting time to learning those steps would have been a waste of time, since the end goal of the system was for it to function without much input.