MadxX79

6 ms·

1.
by MadxX79 13d ago
You can also just draw lots.
2.
by MadxX79 3mo ago
Robots that replace auto industry factory workers exist; the CEO of GM didn't imagine them as part of some sort of business media induced psychotic episode. The same is not true for the software industry execs.
3.
by MadxX79 3mo ago
Amazon lost a cumulative 2.8 billion over their first 17 quarters. So if you're asking about time, then amazon stopped a lot faster. OpenAI is 40 quarters old. If you are asking about money, then amazon... also stopped a lot faster. Op
4.
by MadxX79 3mo ago
If you want to play games like that, you could also flip it around and ask if the AI would have been eventually fired (assuming no one knew they were talking to a computer). Not sure what that proves.
5.
by MadxX79 3mo ago
If you can make it 800 you can claim to be a 100x engineer!
6.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Say what you want about nazis, but they are good at rockets.
7.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
But Google didn't go public until 2004, when they were highly profitable. Every startup goes through a phase where they aren't profitable... For most of of them that ends when they go bankrupt.
8.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Didn't xAI basically donate the compute for that quarter so Anthropic could get to say they turned a profit?
9.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
But then go right back to being unprofitable again afterwards, which is a little weird.
10.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
They don't want to build trust. They want to build a trust wedge between the people making the buying decisions and the people with hands on experience of the product. When an employee says AI isn't speeding up his work, the only
11.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
So, it's like if they were a pharma company that was barely profitable if you didn't take into account R&D costs?
12.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Sounds like a healthy industry, selling tokens at 1000x below cost.
13.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Yeah, I use them all the time. I just don't see any good argument that it's anything other than statistical pattern matching plus some sort of logic encoded in language. My overfitted LLM obviously didn't arrive at Harry Pott
14.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Yeah, what about them? As far as I read it the tasks are fixed. The AI companies should know the tasks by now, and have overfitted their models on the tests by now, in the same way I'm implying I overfitted my model to reproduce Harry
15.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
I don't know why people are so impressed by 8h. I trained an LLM to write the whole Harry Potter series, and that took JK Rowling like 17 years. For my next point on the graph, I'll train the LLM to write the Bible, something that
16.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Karım Kahn at the International Criminal Court would like a word about that.
17.
by MadxX79 4mo ago
Google is the leader, they really don't want AI to be a success, it only comes with a risk of disruption. They probably don't even really believe it's going to be that big of a deal. They are only in that game to hedge; sure
18.
by MadxX79 5mo ago
How do you propose to do a Turing test on a human (in a sense that is different from a machine simply passing the Turing test)? Like failing to pick out all the motorcycles in a captcha, or a turing test where you have a guy chat with two p
19.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
They won't figure it out. It's the tragedy of the commons.
20.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Yeah, so you are agreeing that the benchmarks are useless because they don't answer those questions.
21.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Same question I have for all these benchmarks: What's going to stop e.g. OpenAI from hiring a bunch of teenagers to play these games non-stop for a month and annotate the game with their logic for deriving the rules, generate a data se
22.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
That pretty much describes shape up : https://basecamp.com/shapeup I have a mixed relationship to it, but the scope cutting part of it works extremely well. The focus it brings on focusing on the problem solved rather than
23.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Yeah, enormously. People will hedge depending on how sure they are about something. They might also have credentials in whatever you ask them, if you get legal advice from a lawyer, that can be judged to be more reliable than from a lay per
24.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
In my experience the last answer it gives is usually the right one
25.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Great, now I have two answers and still no clue which one is the right one.
26.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
It's an interesting parallel to, especially right wingers, want project intelligence into 1 dimension so things all humans can be ordered from inferior to superior. That logic was already strained with humans, but with the introduction
27.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Now they have agents. People need to understand that code is a liability. LLMs hasn't changed that at all. You LLM will get every bit as confused when you have a bug somewhere in the backend and you then work around it with another lin
28.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
Your developers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should (add 250kloc)
29.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
I get what you're saying, but I remember watching teletubbies back in the days with my nephew, and all questions of the form: Have ____ surpassed teletubbies? Can always be answered in the affirmative.
30.
by MadxX79 6mo ago
I love the total lack of humility on that site. "What if the METR study turns out not to capture anything relevant? We just add a constant gap to be conservative!". But I guess these guys aren't really scientist, so it&#x27

More ›