3 ms·

What are examples of immense powerful text writers these days?

ben_w 2y ago
Journalists, pundits, politicians, software developers, advertisers, lawyers, propagandists. Take your pick. Right now, the best LLMs are interns not experts at each of these things; I don't expect the transformer model to be good enough to reach the top level in each of these things, but then again I didn't expect anything like Stable Diffusion to happen before self driving cars.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  Which ones there are very powerful? Other than perhaps political leaders (which need not be great writers), power is usually low.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I feel we may be disagreeing about one or both of "very" and "powerful", because otherwise that question makes no sense? Some random member of the, say, Australian parliament, someone I've never heard of, is (relatively speaking) much more powerful than 99% of the planet. A journalist who has an audience of millions, likewise. A software developer whose work is economically valuable either through a broad audience or through being used to control something of great value, also powerful.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Very powerful would mean someone can effect a lot of change if they so desire (change what a lot of people do, have a new and material law put in, change large financial flows, ...). Not sure I agree with the 99% of planet. Even if a single member of the Australian parliament could command all of Australia, it would still only amount to commanding 0.3% the global population (or maybe 2% of NATO plus Japan). Maybe within Australia the individual member's power is more than 99% of population? I don't know much about Australian politics, but in some places vanilla members of parliament or not very powerful within the parliament (compared to party leadership, whips, etc.). Software developers need people that sell stuff, admin for larger organizations etc. They also very rarely have unchecked ability to change things when those things are high risk etc. Zuckerberg, for example, is a huge exception, not the norm. Journalists, even with a large readership, typically would not have much ability to get their readership to just act a certain way. There is not a great command relationship. Most individuals just don't hold much power.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > Not sure I agree with the 99% of planet. Even if a single member of the Australian parliament could command all of Australia, it would still only amount to commanding 0.3% the global population (or maybe 2% of NATO plus Japan). Maybe within Australia the individual member's power is more than 99% of population? I think that's the wrong way to calculate the value? OK, so, how to phrase this… Imagine we were talking about money rather than power (because money can be quantified more easily, and is an imperfect token of power). I believe the base salary for Australian MPs is AU$211,250/year, which is ~ USD 140,700/year. This means they earn more than 99% of the world precisely because: > Most individuals just don't hold much power. Still works when substituting in "money" for "power". Saying that each random MP has more power than 99% of the world population, is very different than saying that each of them individually controls 99% of the power, which would be tautologically impossible.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        Earning in the top 1% globally doesn't mean that the power is more then someone in top 1-2% percentile. That just doesn't translates that well across the globe. I'd also say it needs to be done in wealth terms, not income and then locally (because ability for some Austrilian member of parliament to reach far around the globe is limited).
        ben_w 2y ago
        > Earning … doesn't mean that the power … It's an analogy to explain the point. I'm saying the ranked list of people by power, random* MPs are in the 99th percentile. I mean, is there even a single politician in the world who represents less than 99 people? (There used to be**, but any current examples?) * OK, so that doesn't work over literally all polities — a Tuvalu MP might not have as much power as the parking attendant nearest to the Australian parliament building — but hopefully this at least helps clarify? Perhaps? ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs
        2y ago
felixgallo 2y ago
Donald Trump and Fox News are maybe the canonical examples in modern times. Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch and Trump, they're incredibly effective communicators who have built fanatical religions based on words alone. And what we're about to see is that level of reach and intensity multiplied by millions.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  I am not at all convinced that it is really down to the specific communication vs just seizing an opportunity in one of many possible ways. If they were really super effective broadly, then Trump would have won any popular vote easily.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > If they were really super effective broadly, then Trump would have won any popular vote easily Trump is up against all the other equally effective communicators who are both allowed to and motivated to hold that specific office.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Yes, but again it shows there isn't necessarily a dominant way to communicate. Convincing people is hard.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        This does not appear to dispute the claim that mere communication is an effective way to have a lot of power. Do you think I was claiming someone might be able to demonstrate absolute power, rather than mere relative power? Even Stalin didn't have that, but he would've been one of the closest.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        None of it is mere communication: Need to organise events and travel schedules, create (or shape) organizations, find funds, etc. Communication is perhaps the mostly "visible" part, though.

Journalists, pundits, politicians, software developers, advertisers, lawyers, propagandists. Take your pick. Right now, the best LLMs are interns not experts at each of these things; I don't expect the transformer model to be good enough to reach the top level in each of these things, but then again I didn't expect anything like Stable Diffusion to happen before self driving cars.

RandomLensman 2y ago
Which ones there are very powerful? Other than perhaps political leaders (which need not be great writers), power is usually low.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I feel we may be disagreeing about one or both of "very" and "powerful", because otherwise that question makes no sense? Some random member of the, say, Australian parliament, someone I've never heard of, is (relatively speaking) much more powerful than 99% of the planet. A journalist who has an audience of millions, likewise. A software developer whose work is economically valuable either through a broad audience or through being used to control something of great value, also powerful.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Very powerful would mean someone can effect a lot of change if they so desire (change what a lot of people do, have a new and material law put in, change large financial flows, ...). Not sure I agree with the 99% of planet. Even if a single member of the Australian parliament could command all of Australia, it would still only amount to commanding 0.3% the global population (or maybe 2% of NATO plus Japan). Maybe within Australia the individual member's power is more than 99% of population? I don't know much about Australian politics, but in some places vanilla members of parliament or not very powerful within the parliament (compared to party leadership, whips, etc.). Software developers need people that sell stuff, admin for larger organizations etc. They also very rarely have unchecked ability to change things when those things are high risk etc. Zuckerberg, for example, is a huge exception, not the norm. Journalists, even with a large readership, typically would not have much ability to get their readership to just act a certain way. There is not a great command relationship. Most individuals just don't hold much power.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > Not sure I agree with the 99% of planet. Even if a single member of the Australian parliament could command all of Australia, it would still only amount to commanding 0.3% the global population (or maybe 2% of NATO plus Japan). Maybe within Australia the individual member's power is more than 99% of population? I think that's the wrong way to calculate the value? OK, so, how to phrase this… Imagine we were talking about money rather than power (because money can be quantified more easily, and is an imperfect token of power). I believe the base salary for Australian MPs is AU$211,250/year, which is ~ USD 140,700/year. This means they earn more than 99% of the world precisely because: > Most individuals just don't hold much power. Still works when substituting in "money" for "power". Saying that each random MP has more power than 99% of the world population, is very different than saying that each of them individually controls 99% of the power, which would be tautologically impossible.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        Earning in the top 1% globally doesn't mean that the power is more then someone in top 1-2% percentile. That just doesn't translates that well across the globe. I'd also say it needs to be done in wealth terms, not income and then locally (because ability for some Austrilian member of parliament to reach far around the globe is limited).
        ben_w 2y ago
        > Earning … doesn't mean that the power … It's an analogy to explain the point. I'm saying the ranked list of people by power, random* MPs are in the 99th percentile. I mean, is there even a single politician in the world who represents less than 99 people? (There used to be**, but any current examples?) * OK, so that doesn't work over literally all polities — a Tuvalu MP might not have as much power as the parking attendant nearest to the Australian parliament building — but hopefully this at least helps clarify? Perhaps? ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs
        2y ago

felixgallo 2y ago

Donald Trump and Fox News are maybe the canonical examples in modern times. Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch and Trump, they're incredibly effective communicators who have built fanatical religions based on words alone. And what we're about to see is that level of reach and intensity multiplied by millions.

RandomLensman 2y ago
I am not at all convinced that it is really down to the specific communication vs just seizing an opportunity in one of many possible ways. If they were really super effective broadly, then Trump would have won any popular vote easily.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > If they were really super effective broadly, then Trump would have won any popular vote easily Trump is up against all the other equally effective communicators who are both allowed to and motivated to hold that specific office.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Yes, but again it shows there isn't necessarily a dominant way to communicate. Convincing people is hard.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      This does not appear to dispute the claim that mere communication is an effective way to have a lot of power. Do you think I was claiming someone might be able to demonstrate absolute power, rather than mere relative power? Even Stalin didn't have that, but he would've been one of the closest.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        None of it is mere communication: Need to organise events and travel schedules, create (or shape) organizations, find funds, etc. Communication is perhaps the mostly "visible" part, though.