Nice article.
Funny enough, even though I know if/then/else by heart for decades now, I also spent a few seconds comprehending that 1960 arrow diagram of ALGOL60...
4,708 karma · joined January 4, 2017
Funny enough, even though I know if/then/else by heart for decades now, I also spent a few seconds comprehending that 1960 arrow diagram of ALGOL60...
So far they didn't dare to announce an AI-generated competitor of e.g. Photoshop, inviting Adobe to get honorable mention in a press-release.
Or create a mafia movie and invite Martin Scorcese to join the press-release.
They could easily create final products already instead of providing their tools as a service to those industries. But they are aware of the backlash, so they wait.
Research seems to be a good field to test the waters...
Well, so far those companies offered this distilled human knowledge as part of a service, with all the (unresolved) criticism associated with scraping of other peoples properties.
In this instance they did the next step, created a combined output and are celebrating themselves for the result, inviting others to join.
It's the difference of scraping all books to build a language model from it for sale to others, and outright announcing a new Harry Potter book after extending an offer to JK Rowling to join the press-release.
(and I guess I need to clarify: I don't compare scientific research to writing a novel, I compare the handling of both scenarios)
"Nano-texture finish" on iPhone Duo refers to an additional layer they put on top of the display panel. It's basically a sticker with a similar (same?) surface structure (they can't put it on the display glass itself because it's too thin)
"You didn't even finish your M2 yet and already want to refill your plate?"
But I think you're talking about something entirely different, I leave it to someone else to answer.
This seems to be really hard for some people to understand:
The gripe is not how AI has "cheated" and wasn't "embracing the race", everyone agrees that it's the result that counts.
The problem is that researchers use AI as a tool, and the company owning the tool siphoned all data from the sum of all researchers, combined it and completed the research. Okay, result is reached, still arguably good.
But the company owning the tool now takes credit for the entire research.
"Inviting" selected researchers to be mentioned in the press-release is not fixing that, the entire body of work is actually based on what the sum of researchers did, even those who failed in their research and didn't publish anything.
I could also compare it to a car, but a considered a bicycle more appropriate (maybe because of the "bicycle for the mind" analogy for computers by Steve Jobs).
But comparing it to "Automotive technology" doesn't make sense, because "fuel efficiency" and "safety" are not tools but the properties of a tool.
Scientists are working with tools, and now one of those tools has silently turned this into a race for publication with all the users of the tool.
They review applications beforehand to assess the "relevance of the research proposal" and check if it fits "the objectives and research priorities for this program".
There is no statement whatsoever that the data provided will not be used for training (so there would not be an "lying" required), but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
In essence, they have a process in place to grade and classify the type of information coming from each of those accounts prior to their enablement. I see no issue for them to feed that data back into training, even explicitly weighted for the field the research-access was given to.
Honestly, it's a perfect process: "Physics-research grants are reaching critical mass. Let's put priority on more physics field grants and boost the compute-resources for the physics model. Let's aim for some press-releases end of next quarter."
[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10139500-researcher-acce...
To be fair, the metaphor breaks down here.
In research the private track and the bike used are not relevant, the result is what's relevant to be opened for review and scrutiny (which OpenAI does).
(If someone provably solved cold-fusion, the achievement won't be disqualified because it was solved with "private tools")
My point is rather that the achievement was reached by presenting yourself as an "assistant" to other researchers in the field, and then exploiting their "good faith" by combining all their notes with multi-million dollar resources to publish faster than they can.
They could also supply those multi-million dollar resources to the researchers directly, but they chose not to. And this is what they should be condemned for.
I'm still not fond of the bicycle manufacturer announcing its achievements in bicycle racing, even if it selects the 5 top cyclists to support the orchestration of the announcement.
From past incidences it's already known that their model is very likely trained on input gathered from scientists which use OpenAI as a tool for their research. Suddenly the research community is in a race with the provider of its tool, and can hope for the grace of being selected to judge the output and have an honorable mention in the press-release.
The situation would be different if they would collaborate with scientists during the research, and let them publish the results with reference to OpenAI being a supporter/sponsor.
But this approach of "thanks to your continuous input we now have a bicycle which even our employees can use to beat you, we invite you to be mentioned in our press-release" doesn't sit well with me...
And I'm saying that it's not trivial to run an OS on any hardware. Android is designed for this and well-documented, which makes it look easier. iOS is neither of those.
Reason: Android is a OS designed to run on as much hardware as possible, iOS is designed to support only a VERY limited set of components, and is increasingly wrapped into a per-component security architecture.
I think you would need to hack and emulate the whole security enclave, which contains quite a bit of factory-provisioned data IIRC.
Why wasn't this prosecuted with jail-sentences like Dieselgate?
I'm trying to find a flaw, so far it sounds logical to me:
There's only one AirPlay session, and whichever App requests it suspends the previous one. This way you can also go back from "live demo" to presentation by switching back to the presentation app and selecting AirPlay in that context again...
Noone is denying the existence of Germans in Germany. Germans are a product of their current culture.
Ethnocide is describing the erasure of culture, not the organic evolution of it.
I don't wear the same clothes as my grandparents did, I don't eat the same food, don't do the same work, don't have the same social life.
This is my culture, I am a product of it, my grandchildren will have a different culture. It is arrogant to assume my culture is the "peak" of my countries' culture (or "ethnicity"), just as it is not the place of my parents or grandparents to claim as such.
What is propagated here is that Germany (or whatever nation) needs to proactively reject the coexistence of other cultures within its borders for the fear of any kind of impact on itself in the future, taking effort to (depending on the age of who you ask) preserve or reverse its current state. THIS is genocidal language.
What you can do though, is destroy the foundation of democracy by being tolerant towards discrimination, for the sake of not "banning ideas"
--> "Why not turn people who are not able to work anymore into a nutricious paste for others? It was just a question! You can't silence me, this is a democracy!!"
CDU/CSU will try to take the same topics the AfD used to enrage its voter-base and will present itself as the "rational, conservative and experienced" alternative to the "concerns of the voter".
This is the process which will cause CDU/CSU to not publicly condemn the AfD and its narratives, will make the CDU/CSU to "sacrifice" themselves as the coalition partner who will "control" the AfD, secretly hoping to convert their voters into CDU/CSU voters while AfD destroys itself due to its lack of skills to actually deliver in government.
In the end the AfD MAY or MAY NOT actually collapse if they are forced to deliver on their unrealistic promises. But it won't matter, because #1 the party will not die because it will present itself as the victim, and #2 the whole exercise will do such a substantial damage to political discourse and democracy that it will take decades to recover from it.
Again, one can hope that THIS TIME it will be different...
That's a fascinating perspective. Do you think they "do whatever the left-wing party does" because
1. they are secretly not right-wing?
2. they rallied on matters which were anyway already worked on by the existing government, and reality is not as simple as they claim it is?
3. they had no clue how to actually achieve anything they promised on the required scale, just said anything to enrage people and get their vote and now have to work in the same system as everyone else?
Quote from the website:
"This is an index. The original messages — full headers, bodies, attachments, byte for byte — are in the torrent, inside standard .mbox files. Download the archive, open those files in any mail client, and you have exactly what the party's servers held.
Nothing on this site replaces that, and nothing on this site should be cited as a primary source."
If it progresses like it ALWAYS does (EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.), the center-right party copies the far-right messages in hopes of gaining the votes of the far-right voters, then enters a coalition with them as the "voice of reason to reign them in", to ultimately just achieve normalization of those narratives, a hollowed-out democracy, destroyed political discourse and an empowered far-right party.
But one can hope, that THIS time it will be different...
I'm not sure about that. Someone using AI for productivity every day will experience massive issues if you suddenly take it away.
It's even the whole business model of MS Copilot: They don't work with companies to have their data structured in the past or going forward.
They don't help you to structure your business "life", they offer a tool you consume to make sense of it while you use it.
The moment you stop using it, you'll struggle to even make sense of your own past actions.
> "2. Drug dealers don't actually do that."
It would be a weird business if they only WAIT for people to demand the more profitable drugs...
Let's say I ask a SW engineer to describe the code he wrote, and he repeatedly (!) refers to the addition of an index table as "breaking the laws of computer science".
He can clarify more than once that the achieved result would be impossible with sole event-processing alone, and obviously I know that he didn't break any "laws of computer science" by adding a indexed database.
But every time he explains his work with these words, he will lose a bit of credibility.
It turns out the car has a 200L/600L nitrogen tank with 10,000PSI that needs to be filled from external source.
Consumed nitrogen reduces the pressure, so the tank is re-pressurized with ambient air by a in-car compressor.
It's a backpack company presenting the engineering of a jetpack to promote the sales of a premium backpack with the same name.
Every time Tesla's VP of vehicle engineering [0] explains the Engineering of the product by stating that they are "breaking the laws of physics", everything he says is losing a bit of credibility...
Learnt something today, thank you!