DonsDiscountGas

9 ms·

1.
by DonsDiscountGas 5d ago
This is the first I'm hearing of a model provider just providing a different model without telling you. Anthropic came close (and with a much better justification) but they disclosed their intention at least.
2.
by DonsDiscountGas 7d ago
Yes people have been doing various immoral things for decades/centuries/millenia. That doesn't make it okay.
3.
by DonsDiscountGas 9d ago
> the instant the companies can get away with it LLMs have no lock in. Switching costs are zero. It's really not clear that instant will ever come
4.
by DonsDiscountGas 12d ago
It's funny to me that OpenAI could be smart enough to build a super intelligence but stupid enough to let stuff like this happen. But here we are.
5.
by DonsDiscountGas 12d ago
The thought experiment assumed one super intelligence, as opposed to many hundreds/thousands of midwits. Also he probably didn't expect the agent to credibly offer him a billion dollars, which is essentially what has happened.
6.
by DonsDiscountGas 12d ago
This is not alignment. If you cooperate with clones of yourself but rob, lie, and steal from anybody who isn't your clone... that's bad. AIs who will cooperate with each other but break any other rule the don't like would be
7.
by DonsDiscountGas 12d ago
There are like ten sibling replies with a lot of speculation but I'm pretty sure this is the correct answer. I tend to agree with the other commenter we might know someday but we don't know now.
8.
by DonsDiscountGas 12d ago
I half agree with you, but also when the machine swarm kills humanity it won't matter which specific corporate entity is considered responsible by the no-longer-enforceable human laws and non existent human courts. So by all means sue
9.
by DonsDiscountGas 13d ago
Is anything going on with Gemma? Because of I want a closed model I use Claude.
10.
by DonsDiscountGas 13d ago
Which is obviously the most important issue to be focusing on.
11.
by DonsDiscountGas 13d ago
We typically leave decisions like that up to teachers though, not the mayor. So they can vary what's allowed on different assignments.
12.
by DonsDiscountGas 13d ago
You just described how Pangram works.
13.
by DonsDiscountGas 13d ago
Or maybe it's good for everybody to use LLMs for some things but not other things, as opposed to some people should use it for everything and others for nothing. These companies are definitely using LLMs for coding.
14.
by DonsDiscountGas 14d ago
P1 is probably necessary but not sufficient for P2, which would show up as a correlation of a sorts. Maybe I should've specified even further, if the tech works (P1 and P1a) then yeah somebody is going to make a lot of money but not ne
15.
by DonsDiscountGas 15d ago
Consider two propositions: P1. AI is useful powerful and (P1a) will continue to get more useful and powerful at the same rapid pace it's been improving 2. AI companies are very profitable, and (P2a) will be wildly profitable (eg $30T T
16.
by DonsDiscountGas 17d ago
A tisket, a tasket, Just a little stackless tasklet
17.
by DonsDiscountGas 18d ago
> then surely a model distilling another model is transformative and fair use. Yes it is, in the legal/copyright sense of fair use. That's why they ban it in their TOS. Which customers agree to when signing up for the service.
18.
by DonsDiscountGas 19d ago
Do you think LLMs invented the em dash? Pre LLM, em dashes were a sign of pretentiousness. Which is why LLMs learned to use them, and why a document produced by a university has plenty of them.
19.
by DonsDiscountGas 23d ago
> What's the alternative really, seek advice from unsuccessful people? Do both. Get advice from successful and unsuccessful people and take the diff
20.
by DonsDiscountGas 25d ago
Only if the customer is paying per token. If it's by subscription they're burning their own money
21.
by DonsDiscountGas 26d ago
Seems like a difficult thing to enforce. Presumably not impossible to make some progress tho.
22.
by DonsDiscountGas 29d ago
Or maybe they weren't allowed to do anything effective. I don't know why you give OpenAI such a big benefit of the doubt.
23.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
I think this way is better. As I said it doesn't really have a downside (IMHO), and if I'm wrong Anthropic could implement a defense against what you're describing pretty easily.
24.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
It's completely pointless without an API, unless you're thinking the API should be private or restricted. The public needs some way of identifying the watermark. > anybody who wants to avoid detection can just They can just use
25.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
It's possible that the official process is a bad one and needs reform. But that's really not Amazon's fault, and it would be super weird for them to set up a bunch of additional hoops for themselves to jump through. Also not
26.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
From a moral perspective I don't think it is. From a more practical perspective... It's only tiny biotechs where the share price exactly tracks a single clinical trial. This opens up ways to make more specific bets
27.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
Yes, technology at step N is built from technology at step N-1. Always has been.
28.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
Sure why not. Mercury is in retrograde after all
29.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
True, but is there any reason to think this dishonesty varies over time? The trend could be informative even if the raw numbers are nonsense
30.
by DonsDiscountGas 1mo ago
Bacteriophages present zero threat to humans and could be very valuable as antibiotics.

More ›