3 ms·
> so threw some shit on top and called it a cherry Do you mean metaphorical feces or do you mean "shit" in the general sense of a collection of unspecified mat
by adolph 3y ago
> so threw some shit on top and called it a cherry
Do you mean metaphorical feces or do you mean "shit" in the general sense of a collection of unspecified materials?
I think the canonical example of deciding chocolate wasn't good enough and throwing shit on top was what happened to the LP400 [0] or "Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging" [1].
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
- godelski 3y agoI mean in the sense of overselling, snakeoil, and deception. So metaphorical. The tools have a lot of abilities but they are vastly oversold as intelligent and reasoning systems when they not. We have systems like Devin, Humane Pin, Rabbit, and so many more that were clearly not going to work as they were advertised, yet even big names promote these. "Top notch" researchers who believe the claims and promote them. When they should be dismissing them. But maybe they're playing a different game. I mean we why can we not recognize the absolute incredible feat that LLMs actually are. You're telling me that we (lossy) compressed the entire (text on the) internet AND built a human language interface to retrieve that information and we can get this all to run on a GPU with <24GB of VRAM? That's wildly impressive! It's wildly impressive even were we to suppose the error rate was 1000x whatever you think it is. I mean Eliza is cool, but this shit (opposite usage) is bonkers. Anyone saying that isn't is just not paying attention or naive. There's no need to sell the "baby" AGI story when this is so incredibly impressive already.