simianwords

6 ms·

1.
by simianwords 3d ago
I just find it strange how multiple people throw completely different arguments just to land on same conclusion. Your argument seems to mix a few arguments like: OpenAI has so much demand and it has made so much compute that it is a bad thi
2.
by simianwords 3d ago
they lied about their performance by.... solving a famously hard problem to solve? Edit: The "reputable academic" who accused OpenAI had to say this about LLMs and the recent result. > “the results are not the important thing.”
3.
by simianwords 3d ago
(100% AI generated tweet btw) My take is that there's a real impending doom with real reason to coordinate a slow down: I'd put this at 60%. Reasons? All smart people are on this position. Dario has been saying this since 2015 or
4.
by simianwords 3d ago
Sorry, this is ridiculous. OpenAI said that they have a step change in model performance. They proved it by solving a Millenium problem. HF incidents are public and vetted. If you still think there's a stall despite all evidence pointi
5.
by simianwords 3d ago
huge problem in discourse is that there are real interesting wedges in debate like p(doom) and RSI. but zitronion thought is not the real interesting wedge and almost everyone is on this side. - AI can't be profitable (lol) - everythin
6.
by simianwords 3d ago
No it’s not fixed like that. Total prosperity of world has increased inflation adjusted over 100 years. Why? Surprised basic stuff is now being questioned.
7.
by simianwords 3d ago
If it’s a fixed pie why do we have more collectively now than 200 years ago? Value also comes from technology which you seem to suspiciously remove
8.
by simianwords 3d ago
You do realise it’s not a fixed pie right?
9.
by simianwords 4d ago
Here are the cope points 1. Navier Stokes was plagiarism 2. All benchmarks were misleading wrong and incorrect 3. All other mathematical advances were again hype 4. HF incident was marketting ploy jointly coordinated by HF, METR and OpenAI
10.
by simianwords 4d ago
I'm willing to at least listen to conspiracy theories but this makes no sense.. OpenAI and Anthropic have more to lose by pausing than these rando Chinese companies.
11.
by simianwords 4d ago
unexpected marx/acc. Still lazy Marxist rhetoric (capital, means of production, revolution, masses)
12.
by simianwords 4d ago
This line will keep repeating because it is necessary for the narrative: AI in general is just hype and unprofitable and all these companies are playing marketing tricks before the IPO after which they will cash out and let the economy
13.
by simianwords 4d ago
Is this done even if you turn off the consent? How come there's no answer to this?
14.
by simianwords 5d ago
That’s an interesting way to look at it but I don’t think it maps one to one. Like we could build a car but a car hasn’t just evolved. Anyway it’s a somewhat good proxy but I fundamentally don’t think robots with dexterity is harder than co
15.
by simianwords 5d ago
Here's my pushback: a lot of these capabilities are correlated. So someone reading this would think "oh there's so many different things needed" but that's not true. IMO the long horizon thing is one part and physic
16.
by simianwords 5d ago
> Whether it's caveman the kinda guy who honestly thinks caveman.md reduces costs, actually adds it to his system prompt and is painstakingly reading the terse output
17.
by simianwords 5d ago
Nice, I really do think that the main unsolved problem is making robots that have the physical dexterity maintain and create Data Centres all the way down - mine raw materials, solar farms for energy, create chips from ground up etc. But yo
18.
by simianwords 5d ago
> also makes people believe they understand more than they do, because every answer comes so easily to them. But the LLMs are easily steered and tend to agree with what you want them to say. Well agree to disagree but my load bearing cla
19.
by simianwords 5d ago
I think it is amazing and it will democratise information. A lot of times the concept ends up being simple with a lot of jargon exists as a gatekeeping method. Well of course the incumbents wouldn't like that rando from outside gets to
20.
by simianwords 6d ago
step 7 cash, in on the ipo before the bubble bursts
21.
by simianwords 6d ago
> The Wednesday evening statement from OpenAI was more emphatic: “We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training.” &
22.
by simianwords 6d ago
the same type of people will eventually hate it when AI actually starts profiting at which point they will ask for redistribution. damned if you do. damned if you don't.
23.
by simianwords 6d ago
this is an effective way to stop OpenAI from doing anything, just flood it with your attempts.
24.
by simianwords 6d ago
Happy to bet 5 years.
25.
by simianwords 6d ago
this is FUD and I can have a bet with you that this won't happen in 3 years (or ever) [1]. post-training on specific brands is hard and affects overall accuracy, doesn't offer explainability, long cadence, no run time auction.. mo
26.
by simianwords 6d ago
nah this will never happen. do you really think they will do post training based on who pays them more?
27.
by simianwords 6d ago
I get it, but what option does OpenAI have here other than to present the two options?
28.
by simianwords 6d ago
so what option do you leave them with? they are giving both alternatives and clearly stating both do the same thing underneath. there's literally nothing else they could have done here.
29.
by simianwords 6d ago
Can anyone explain to me why Tristan simply didn't go to settings page and turn off the thing? Especially when Levent was collaborating with him and Levent is completely aware of how the training data is used and the implications there
30.
by simianwords 6d ago
> but there is a better way to do it. This looks incorrect. OpenAI have flat out said that there's no need of doing this and both ways are equivalent > We respect our users' choice whether to use their data to “improve our m

More ›