robbomacrae

Perhaps but with a modern/futuristic twist.

The cells in our body have one by one been replaced with new ones and the old ones have died off.

This is not the case for our "talking" neurons which is what I was trying to limit this thought experiment to. I think a lot more folks would be ok with preserving their biological brain as is within a robot/clone if that was the only option and understand the body gets (mostly) replaced. Although a few in this thread have alluded to the fact we might be missing important relationships with the rest of the body such as the nervous system and gut biome.

That all makes sense. But let's run with this way beyond the foreseeable tech. What if you can replace each neuron in situ one by one up to X%. Then what if it was reversible (the neurons were initially just bypassed, commented out). Someone could then dial it up to 5%.. 50% and if they still felt the same throughout and then went up to 100%. In that scenario would they have copied themselves?

I find it fascinatingly coincidental that neurons are the only cells in the body that don't rejuvenate unless there is some sort of injury [0].

[0]: https://www.dzne.de/en/im-fokus/meldungen/2021/neurons-able-...

Or turn it into something wider than HN.. a button that can be added to any page on the internet that becomes easier to recall "hey I wonder who else likes or wants to discuss this article on meet.x?

I’m curious to know of similar examples happening or references that back this up if you or anyone has them.

I work at SoundHound. If it didn't get it in two tries it's likely we didn't have that song in the database. Both Shazam and SH have knowledge gaps.

Code, model, data and under Apache 2.0. Impressive.

Curious how this was allowed to be more open source compared to Llama's interesting new take on "open source". Are other projects restricted in some form due to technical/legal issues and the desire is to be more like this project? Or was there an initiative to break the mold this time round?

If it really is as you say then that sounds like it won't hold up when challenged in court but IANAL...

Whilst I agree with the reservations of the other replies I think you were implying in the future and I'm sure the LLM's will be more trustworthy and up to the task at some point.

What I would really like to see now is all the new TTS models being used more widespread. There are still so many games that have text only output. My kid love Alba: A wildlife Adventure but the eldest still isn't quite ready to read all the text so I have to sit with them reading out all the lines.

If anyone has a way of applying universal mods / accessibility features to existing games I'd love to see someone solve this and happy to help with the TTS!

These things might be able to produce comparable output but that wasn't my point. I agree that if we are comparing ourselves over the text that gets written then LLM's can achieve super intelligence. And writing text can indeed be simplified to token predicting.

My point was we are not just glorified token predicting machines. There is a lot going on behind what we write and whether we write it or not. Does the method matter vs just the output? I think/hope it does on some level.

It's a cute generalization but you do yourself a great disservice. It's somewhat difficult to argue given the medium we have here and it may be impossible to disprove but consider that in first 30 minutes of your post being highly visible on this thread no one had yet replied. Some may have acted in other ways.. had opinions.. voted it up/down. Some may have debated replying in jest or with a some related biblical verse. I'd wager a few may have used what they could deduce from your comment and/or history to build a mini model of you in their heads, and using that to simulate the conversation to decide if it was worth the time to get into such a debate vs tending to other things.

Could current LLM's do any of this?

Interesting timing. Microsoft Aurora[0] was announced yesterday although that got very little attention here[1]. Too recent to be added to the article.

[0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/introducing-au...

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40564138

Thank you for this tip!

Gmail pushes chrome as a default browser repeatedly too. No way to turn that off. The system knows you don't want it (having already said no 15 times) its just hoping the 16th time you will accidentally click yes. I suspect as search evolves AI will no doubt be better at sneaking in less accurate but more lucrative results.

That's precisely what they did with Doodle God to imitate Morgan Freeman [0] and how James Veich deep faked David Attenborough in his PLnaT eRth video [1].

[0]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/20/how-the-doodle-god-un...

[1]: https://youtu.be/-CopbQ_QgmM?si=gkbWEva_qqG8dTib&t=205

I think OP is just pointing out that "acting in the best interests of humanity" is fairly ambiguous and leaves enough room for interpretation and spin to cover any number of sins.

I feel like the lowest hanging fruit right now lies with the UI and already established techniques for reducing latency and making the experience smoother.

Just executing the client right would give someone a competitive advantage right now...

Having worked at Apple I can assure you it's not just spin. It's nigh on impossible to get permission to even compare your data with another service inside of Apple and even if you do get permission the user ids and everything are completely different so theres no way to match up users. Honestly its kind of ridiculous the lengths they go to and makes development an absolute PITA.

They already do this. It's called federated learning and its a way for them to use your data to help personalize the model for you and also (to a much lesser extent) the global model for everyone whilst still respecting your data privacy. It's not to save money, it's so they can keep your data private on device and still use ML.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/11/131629/apple-ai-...

I don't think this is what you meant but it matches the spec: federated learning is being used by Apple to train models for various applications and some of that happens on device (iphones/ipads) with your personal data before its hashed and sent up to the mothership model anonymously.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/11/131629/apple-ai-...

I'm generally a proponent of AI and LLM but to me the decision was the right one. You are tasking people with implementing an idea generated by an algorithmic model with (I'm guessing) zero oversight that might have very little training that teaches it the importance of coming up with ideas worth implementing. Some may be more useful than others so it won't be fair from an accomplishment or motivation point of view.

Imagine you've already invested time going to this event and want to win the prize/credit but to do so you have to implement a plugin that makes webpages grayscale because of a random idea generator. Maybe some people would find that interesting but others would see it as wasting their time.

I, at least, had sources. I tried looking evidence of this new fact about Yugoslavia you presented but could not find any.

It was called the Kosovo war. Why can we not compare the two? They seem VERY comparable to me.

But if Wikipedia and Al Jazeera are not good enough for you then you will see the following orgs also posted these numbers: NPR [0], BBC [1], NYTimes [2]. And if your worried those numbers are inflated there is an article in the Lancet that shows if anything it is the opposite [3].

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ6Ny8_QViY

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/world/middleeast/gaza-dea...

[3]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Yes its genocide.

In 1999 Yugoslavia killed ~12 thousand Albanians and displaced ~85 thousand more. Bill Clintons secretary of defense had no problem calling that genocide: "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide.". This led NATO to drop bombs on Yugoslavia [0].

In this conflict Israel has killed ~31 thousand Palestinians and displaced ~2.3 million more [1]. And now we sell them jet planes [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_S...

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration...

Its not even "lite" genocide...

In 1999 Yugoslavia killed ~12 thousand Albanians and displaced ~85 thousand more. Bill Clintons secretary of defense had no problem calling that genocide: "The appalling accounts of mass killing in Kosovo and the pictures of refugees fleeing Serb oppression for their lives makes it clear that this is a fight for justice over genocide.". This led NATO to drop bombs on Yugoslavia [0].

In this conflict Israel has killed ~31 thousand Palestinians and displaced ~2.3 million more [1]. For all its tough talk the Biden administration has responded by selling Israel jet planes [2].

I'm not saying bombing Yugoslavia was justified. But there is plenty of historical precedent to call this conflict genocide.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_invasion_of_the_Gaza_S...

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration...

Difference is someone has to fire those weapons and that someone is responsible.

It's a good question. I also immediately found myself asking the same one of myself after posting that comment. I guess part of me just wants as many possible breakpoints along the process as possible.

But also at least then you have someone who is liable when things go wrong. When its fully automated, like the other comment mentions, they can just shrug and blame the AI. Who gets sued when a self driving car kills someone by accident? I don't know. Perhaps a lack of ownership is excusable. But when a weapon deliberately kills someone I think we need to have ownership somewhere.

Perhaps as a general rule the maker of the AI system should have liability for the AI up until someone else signs and accepts that responsibility. None of this "Company does not accept liability" crap. They have to make it clear that "customer accepts liability" or else it's them. That way they will be incentivized to make the military or whoever sign.

Disturbing indeed. I've been worried a push back in AI is coming and this sort of story could be a tipping point and certainly would justify a period of reflection.

And your probably right that the alternatives maybe worse, the folks behind Lavender could probably even prove it with data.. but there should be a moral impetus to always have a human in the loop regardless. And any such attempt to justify it won't capture the publics attention like a sky-net doomsday happening over the civilians in Gaza.

> Specifically, we encourage steps like: * Phasing out voice based authentication as a security measure for accessing bank accounts and other sensitive information

I've been trying to tell people this for years. My bank still tries to get me to sign up to voice id whenever I call in. Voice is a terrible method for authentication.

Not trying to hijack this. Great demo! But STT can be very much real-time now. Try SoundHound's transcription service available through the Houndify platform [0] (we really don't market this well enough). It's lightning fast and it's half of what powers the Dynamic Interaction demos that we've been putting out.

I actually made a demo just like this aqua voice internally (unfortunately didn't get prioritized) but there is really no lag. However it will always be the case where the model will want to "revisit" transcribed words based on what comes next. So if you want the best accuracy you do want to wait a sec or two for the transcription to settle down a bit.

[0]: https://www.houndify.com

Full title (too long to fit): Sam Altman may have Siri and Alexa in his sights after OpenAI filed a ‘digital voice assistant’ trademark application.

Trademark application appears to be for ‘Voice Engine’ [0]. This seems about as likely to be granted as the previous ‘GPT’ attempt.

[0]: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98456635

I'm still expecting this is the end goal. But I've started to question what inference on device will do to battery life. I suspect it will drain devices pretty quickly but if anyone has any studies to suggest otherwise please let me know!