4 ms·
Arguing that academic papers for AI are snake oil by using one CEO’s previous and unrelated venture as an attack on his character is not convincing. The method
by williamcotton 4y ago
Arguing that academic papers for AI are snake oil by using one CEO’s previous and unrelated venture as an attack on his character is not convincing.
The methods for reproducing the LLMs in question have been published. Much like with the LHC, one hindrance to reproducing claims is the cost of building the machine. Unlike the LHC, mere mortals can interact with the machine and draw their own conclusions of the claims published by the academic journals.
This the the foundation of the issues you raise with regards to science in the 21st century: the cost of reproducing a claim is at odds with “taking no one’s word”.
The leak of the LLaMA models changes this dynamic. It is now possible to run the models locally and with the same datasets published in the journals. This is hardly egalitarian but science has always had a material cost. Competition from both public and private sources almost guarantees that these models will be cheap and abundant in not too long of a time.
- latexr 4y ago> Arguing that academic papers for AI are snake oil by using one CEO’s previous and unrelated venture as an attack on his character is not convincing. That’s a wild extrapolation and an absolute mischaracterisation of what I wrote. Please respond to what people write, not what you think they believe. I only claimed many people are wary of giving OpenAI their phone number due to their CEO. I did not say AI papers are snake oil. On the contrary, I explicitly said I don’t know and have respectfully asked for clarifications. Also, Worldcoin is neither a previous venture nor unrelated. They just pivoted to collect your eyeballs to prove you’re not an AI, “solving” the problem they created. https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-of-ai https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-...