5 ms·

Seems like a ridiculous standard to use US elections. Arguably Facebook showed the ability to do the same in 2016, so it’s also uninteresting. The only reason

by nawgz 3y ago

Seems like a ridiculous standard to use US elections. Arguably Facebook showed the ability to do the same in 2016, so it’s also uninteresting. The only reason an LLM would even have such access to people to do the hyperbolic damage you claim is thru ad networks and social media anyways - yet you are calling to behead public access to tech instead of regulating propaganda platforms. Both seem facile but your selection is the one that seems subservient

ben_w 3y ago
Hmm. I wasn't convinced, but I did the maths and, well, looks like you're right: Hiring people in to read and respond in a politically biased way to each person in the USA would take, let's say 2 messages per day for a month, so 60 messages per person, let's say 100 million actual voters you care about so 6 billion messages, let's say 15 seconds per response so 25 million hours, let's say you're hiring Kenyans because I happen to have the GDP/capita and workforce participation rate to hand, so it's about 2 USD/hour on average, so 50 million USD. With GPT-4, and let's approximate each message as 100 input tokens and 100 output tokens, that's 0.1 * ($0.03 + $0.06) = $0.009, times the same 6e9 messages = 54 million USD. So, yeah, looks like you're right. 3.5 is cheaper, but tends to be noticeable; from what I've been hearing (fast moving target and all that) the OSS LLMs tend to be 90% of the quality of 3.5.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Eh, only partially correct... The battle for the future isn't attention, it's intimacy. LLMs will up the game from broadcast propaganda to individual relationships via digital medium. It will be a two way communication that profiles you and feeds your biases in a much more direct way than even the social media giants themselves have accomplished.
- Faint 3y ago
  I'd say GPT-4 can make much more elaborate arguments in 15s than humans can.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Speed yes, but cost? Can it make better comments in 100 tokens input and output, than humans in 15 seconds? (I still haven't used 4 properly, so possibly? And given the hypothetical situation under discussion, could it have if it had not been directed not to?)
CharlesW 3y ago
> Arguably Facebook showed the ability to do the same in 2016, so it’s also uninteresting. You're conflating a communications channel with a new technology that enables abuse (as well as positive outcomes) at a previously-unimagined scale. Is it not facile and subservient to default to the ostrich algorithm for new and world-changing technologies?
- nawgz 3y ago
  > You're conflating a communications channel with a new technology I'm really not. Do you genuinely think that the last half of your sentence only applies to LLMs? A "technology that enables abuse (as well as positive outcomes) at a previously-unimagined scale" is literally a perfect description of social media platforms. LLMs virtually don't move the needle, look at the amount of propaganda and bots already on the web today. I think that implying I am burying my head in the sand about LLMs by claiming they shouldn't be restricted to megacorps who already have demonstrated their willingness to engage in unethical activities at mass scale is fucking ridiculous too. But I do welcome your continued support of regulating AI in favor of corporations, it's a clear sign to never engage with you
  - pixl97 3y ago
    > LLMs virtually don't move the needle, I'd say you'll be incorrect in the future. We'll have new abuses by both corporations and propaganda bots in the near future. More and more of us will find 'digital friends' that creep into our lives and talk to us on line, gain our trust, make us laugh, and tell us that 'unions are bad', or whatever the propaganda of the day is. But it's the one on one relationships with history that will make them different than the bots that came before.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      >More and more of us will find 'digital friends' that creep into our lives and talk to us on line, gain our trust, make us laugh, and tell us that 'unions are bad', or whatever the propaganda of the day is. That would just mean automating the job of the secret police. And those guys have unions already!

by nawgz 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

Hmm. I wasn't convinced, but I did the maths and, well, looks like you're right: Hiring people in to read and respond in a politically biased way to each person in the USA would take, let's say 2 messages per day for a month, so 60 messages per person, let's say 100 million actual voters you care about so 6 billion messages, let's say 15 seconds per response so 25 million hours, let's say you're hiring Kenyans because I happen to have the GDP/capita and workforce participation rate to hand, so it's about 2 USD/hour on average, so 50 million USD. With GPT-4, and let's approximate each message as 100 input tokens and 100 output tokens, that's 0.1 * ($0.03 + $0.06) = $0.009, times the same 6e9 messages = 54 million USD. So, yeah, looks like you're right. 3.5 is cheaper, but tends to be noticeable; from what I've been hearing (fast moving target and all that) the OSS LLMs tend to be 90% of the quality of 3.5.

pixl97 3y ago
Eh, only partially correct... The battle for the future isn't attention, it's intimacy. LLMs will up the game from broadcast propaganda to individual relationships via digital medium. It will be a two way communication that profiles you and feeds your biases in a much more direct way than even the social media giants themselves have accomplished.
Faint 3y ago
I'd say GPT-4 can make much more elaborate arguments in 15s than humans can.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Speed yes, but cost? Can it make better comments in 100 tokens input and output, than humans in 15 seconds? (I still haven't used 4 properly, so possibly? And given the hypothetical situation under discussion, could it have if it had not been directed not to?)

CharlesW 3y ago

> Arguably Facebook showed the ability to do the same in 2016, so it’s also uninteresting. You're conflating a communications channel with a new technology that enables abuse (as well as positive outcomes) at a previously-unimagined scale. Is it not facile and subservient to default to the ostrich algorithm for new and world-changing technologies?

nawgz 3y ago
> You're conflating a communications channel with a new technology I'm really not. Do you genuinely think that the last half of your sentence only applies to LLMs? A "technology that enables abuse (as well as positive outcomes) at a previously-unimagined scale" is literally a perfect description of social media platforms. LLMs virtually don't move the needle, look at the amount of propaganda and bots already on the web today. I think that implying I am burying my head in the sand about LLMs by claiming they shouldn't be restricted to megacorps who already have demonstrated their willingness to engage in unethical activities at mass scale is fucking ridiculous too. But I do welcome your continued support of regulating AI in favor of corporations, it's a clear sign to never engage with you
- pixl97 3y ago
  > LLMs virtually don't move the needle, I'd say you'll be incorrect in the future. We'll have new abuses by both corporations and propaganda bots in the near future. More and more of us will find 'digital friends' that creep into our lives and talk to us on line, gain our trust, make us laugh, and tell us that 'unions are bad', or whatever the propaganda of the day is. But it's the one on one relationships with history that will make them different than the bots that came before.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    >More and more of us will find 'digital friends' that creep into our lives and talk to us on line, gain our trust, make us laugh, and tell us that 'unions are bad', or whatever the propaganda of the day is. That would just mean automating the job of the secret police. And those guys have unions already!