8 ms·

Well if nothing else, this one might be significantly less nerfed. Very interesting to compare to the others.

refulgentis 3y ago
It's not, and I mean it, specifically in groks case. Generally, it's a boring boneheaded talking point that the 1% of us actually working in AI use as a sorting hat for who else is.
- not_really 3y ago
  lol, okay
- mlindner 3y ago
  Curious why you're so dismissive of something that's pretty important?
- random_cynic 3y ago
  The 1% who actually work on AI don't use terms as generic as "AI". Way to reveal yourself as college undergrad who read a couple of popular science books, downloaded MNIST data and thinks they are "experts".
- verticalscaler 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    (not sure you're going to edit again, but in the current one, I'm not sure what Google's silly stock image warning has to do with anything, and I have generally chosen to avoid engaging people doing their politics hobby via AI discussion, since it became okay to across the ideological spectrum of my peers. So, mu is my answer.) And you're right, I was really surprised to see the harder right people throwing up their hands after the Gemini stuff.
    - verticalscaler 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Wouldn't have even noticed had you not pointed it out.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        Feel free to explain! You caught my attention now, I'm very curious why it's on topic. Preregistering MD5 of my guess: 7bfcce475114d7696cd1d6a67756761a
        verticalscaler 3y ago
        [flagged]
        refulgentis 3y ago
        No I didn't, at least, I don't think it did but it does sound exactly like me. But then again, I don't know what it'd have to do with anything you said specifically. https://pastebin.com/yfUWZMmc https://pastebin.com/yfUWZMmc, idk if it's right because you kinda just went for more free association.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  The safety crap makes the tools unusable. I used to have a test for it that I thought was decent, but Claude failed that test and it is way better than ChatGPT-4 for code, which means my test was bogus. The people actually working in AI are kind of irrelevant to me. It's whether or not the model will solve problems for me reliably. People "actually working in AI" have all sorts of nonsense takes.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    > The safety crap makes the tools unusable For you that may be the case. But the widespread popularity of ChatGPT and similar models shows that it isn't a serious impediment to adoption. And erring on the side of safety comes with significant benefits e.g. less negative media coverage, investigations by regulators etc.
    - wmidwestranger 3y ago
      Seems like marketing and brand recognition might be some confounding variables when asserting ChatGPT's dominance is due to technical and performance superiority.
  - benreesman 3y ago
    Another day, another fairly good comment going grey on an AI #1. The over-alignment is really starting to be the dominant term in model utility, Opus and even Sonnet are both subjectively and on certain coding metrics outperforming both the 1106-preview and 0125-preview on many coding tasks, and we are seeing an ever-escalating set of kinda ridiculous hot takes from people with the credentials to know better. Please stop karma bombing comments saying reasonable things on important topics. The parent is maybe a little spicy, but the GP bought a ticket to that and plenty more. edit: fixed typo.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      What if they're wrong, and most people know what a "system message" is a year after ChatGPT launch, so they're willing to downvote? Is there any chance that could be happening, instead of a complex drama play with OP buying tickets to spice that's 100% obviously true?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- benreesman 3y ago
  I’ve been known to get snippy on HN from time to time myself :) So please know that I’m only offering a gentle nudge that I’d want from a fellow long-timer myself regarding a line of discussion that’s liable to age poorly. Talking about sorting hats for those who do and don’t have the one-percenter AI badge isn’t a super hot look my guy (and I’ve veered dangerously close to that sort of thing myself, this is painful experience talking): while there is no shortage of uninformed editorializing about fairly cutting edge stuff, the image of a small cabal of robed insiders chucking in their cashews while swiping left and right on who gets to be part of the discussion serves neither experts nor their employers nor enthusiastic laypeople. This is especially true for “alignment” stuff, which is probably the single most electrified rail in the whole discussion. And as a Google employee in the diffuser game by way of color theory, you guys have a “days since we over-aligned an image generation model right into a PR catastrophe” sign on the wall in the micro kitchen right? That looked “control vector” whacky, not DPO with pretty extreme negative prompt whacky, and substantially undermined the public’s trust in the secretive mega labs. So as one long-time HN user and FAANG ML person to another, maybe ixnay with the atekeepinggay on the contentious AI #1 thread a bit?
  - gopher_space 3y ago
    Every discipline has its bellwether topics. They’re useful for filtering out people who want to chip in without picking up the tools.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    regardless of whether they say it out loud, it is what many of us think - might be good for people to know why their opinions are getting immediately dismissed by insiders
    - benreesman 3y ago
      Letting people know how why their opinions are getting dismissed in a productive way is done by citing well-known sources in low-effort way, or by explaining things thoughtfully in a high-effort way: Karpathy has chosen the highest-effort way of most anyone, it seems unlikely that anyone is at a higher rung of "insiderness" than he is, having been at Toronto with (IIRC) Hinton and Alex and those folks since this was called "deep learning", and has worked at this point at most of the best respected labs. But even if folks don't find that argument persuasive, I'd remind everyone that the "insiders" have a tendency to get run over by the commons/maker/hacker/technical public in this business: Linux destroying basically the entire elite Unix vendor ecosystem and ending up on well over half of mobile came about (among many other reasons) because plenty of good hackers weren't part of the establishment, or were sick of the bullshit they were doing at work all day and went home and worked on the open stuff (bringing all their expertise with them) is a signal example. And what e.g. the Sun people were doing in the 90s was every bit as impressive given the hardware they had as anything coming out of a big lab today. I think LeCun did the original MNIST stuff on a Sun box. The hard-core DRM stuff during the Napster Wars getting hacked, leaked, reverse engineered, and otherwise rendered irrelevant until a workable compromise was brokered would be another example of how that mentality destroyed the old guard. I guess I sort of agree that it's good people are saying this out loud, because it's probably a conversation we should have, but yikes, someone is going to end up on the wrong side of history here and realizing how closely scrutinized all of this is going to be by that history has really motivated me to watch my snark on the topic and apologize pretty quickly when I land in that place. When I was in Menlo Park, Mark and Sheryl had intentionally left a ton of Sun Microsystems iconography all over the place and the message was pretty clear: if you get complacent in this business, start thinking you're too smart to be challenged, someone else is going to be working in your office faster than you ever thought possible.

It's not, and I mean it, specifically in groks case. Generally, it's a boring boneheaded talking point that the 1% of us actually working in AI use as a sorting hat for who else is.

not_really 3y ago
lol, okay
mlindner 3y ago
Curious why you're so dismissive of something that's pretty important?
random_cynic 3y ago
The 1% who actually work on AI don't use terms as generic as "AI". Way to reveal yourself as college undergrad who read a couple of popular science books, downloaded MNIST data and thinks they are "experts".
verticalscaler 3y ago
[flagged]
- refulgentis 3y ago
  (not sure you're going to edit again, but in the current one, I'm not sure what Google's silly stock image warning has to do with anything, and I have generally chosen to avoid engaging people doing their politics hobby via AI discussion, since it became okay to across the ideological spectrum of my peers. So, mu is my answer.) And you're right, I was really surprised to see the harder right people throwing up their hands after the Gemini stuff.
  - verticalscaler 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - itishappy 3y ago
      Wouldn't have even noticed had you not pointed it out.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Feel free to explain! You caught my attention now, I'm very curious why it's on topic. Preregistering MD5 of my guess: 7bfcce475114d7696cd1d6a67756761a
      - verticalscaler 3y ago
        [flagged]
        refulgentis 3y ago
        No I didn't, at least, I don't think it did but it does sound exactly like me. But then again, I don't know what it'd have to do with anything you said specifically. https://pastebin.com/yfUWZMmc https://pastebin.com/yfUWZMmc, idk if it's right because you kinda just went for more free association.
renewiltord 3y ago
The safety crap makes the tools unusable. I used to have a test for it that I thought was decent, but Claude failed that test and it is way better than ChatGPT-4 for code, which means my test was bogus. The people actually working in AI are kind of irrelevant to me. It's whether or not the model will solve problems for me reliably. People "actually working in AI" have all sorts of nonsense takes.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > The safety crap makes the tools unusable For you that may be the case. But the widespread popularity of ChatGPT and similar models shows that it isn't a serious impediment to adoption. And erring on the side of safety comes with significant benefits e.g. less negative media coverage, investigations by regulators etc.
  - wmidwestranger 3y ago
    Seems like marketing and brand recognition might be some confounding variables when asserting ChatGPT's dominance is due to technical and performance superiority.
- benreesman 3y ago
  Another day, another fairly good comment going grey on an AI #1. The over-alignment is really starting to be the dominant term in model utility, Opus and even Sonnet are both subjectively and on certain coding metrics outperforming both the 1106-preview and 0125-preview on many coding tasks, and we are seeing an ever-escalating set of kinda ridiculous hot takes from people with the credentials to know better. Please stop karma bombing comments saying reasonable things on important topics. The parent is maybe a little spicy, but the GP bought a ticket to that and plenty more. edit: fixed typo.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    What if they're wrong, and most people know what a "system message" is a year after ChatGPT launch, so they're willing to downvote? Is there any chance that could be happening, instead of a complex drama play with OP buying tickets to spice that's 100% obviously true?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
benreesman 3y ago
I’ve been known to get snippy on HN from time to time myself :) So please know that I’m only offering a gentle nudge that I’d want from a fellow long-timer myself regarding a line of discussion that’s liable to age poorly. Talking about sorting hats for those who do and don’t have the one-percenter AI badge isn’t a super hot look my guy (and I’ve veered dangerously close to that sort of thing myself, this is painful experience talking): while there is no shortage of uninformed editorializing about fairly cutting edge stuff, the image of a small cabal of robed insiders chucking in their cashews while swiping left and right on who gets to be part of the discussion serves neither experts nor their employers nor enthusiastic laypeople. This is especially true for “alignment” stuff, which is probably the single most electrified rail in the whole discussion. And as a Google employee in the diffuser game by way of color theory, you guys have a “days since we over-aligned an image generation model right into a PR catastrophe” sign on the wall in the micro kitchen right? That looked “control vector” whacky, not DPO with pretty extreme negative prompt whacky, and substantially undermined the public’s trust in the secretive mega labs. So as one long-time HN user and FAANG ML person to another, maybe ixnay with the atekeepinggay on the contentious AI #1 thread a bit?
- gopher_space 3y ago
  Every discipline has its bellwether topics. They’re useful for filtering out people who want to chip in without picking up the tools.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  regardless of whether they say it out loud, it is what many of us think - might be good for people to know why their opinions are getting immediately dismissed by insiders
  - benreesman 3y ago
    Letting people know how why their opinions are getting dismissed in a productive way is done by citing well-known sources in low-effort way, or by explaining things thoughtfully in a high-effort way: Karpathy has chosen the highest-effort way of most anyone, it seems unlikely that anyone is at a higher rung of "insiderness" than he is, having been at Toronto with (IIRC) Hinton and Alex and those folks since this was called "deep learning", and has worked at this point at most of the best respected labs. But even if folks don't find that argument persuasive, I'd remind everyone that the "insiders" have a tendency to get run over by the commons/maker/hacker/technical public in this business: Linux destroying basically the entire elite Unix vendor ecosystem and ending up on well over half of mobile came about (among many other reasons) because plenty of good hackers weren't part of the establishment, or were sick of the bullshit they were doing at work all day and went home and worked on the open stuff (bringing all their expertise with them) is a signal example. And what e.g. the Sun people were doing in the 90s was every bit as impressive given the hardware they had as anything coming out of a big lab today. I think LeCun did the original MNIST stuff on a Sun box. The hard-core DRM stuff during the Napster Wars getting hacked, leaked, reverse engineered, and otherwise rendered irrelevant until a workable compromise was brokered would be another example of how that mentality destroyed the old guard. I guess I sort of agree that it's good people are saying this out loud, because it's probably a conversation we should have, but yikes, someone is going to end up on the wrong side of history here and realizing how closely scrutinized all of this is going to be by that history has really motivated me to watch my snark on the topic and apologize pretty quickly when I land in that place. When I was in Menlo Park, Mark and Sheryl had intentionally left a ton of Sun Microsystems iconography all over the place and the message was pretty clear: if you get complacent in this business, start thinking you're too smart to be challenged, someone else is going to be working in your office faster than you ever thought possible.