4 ms·

This sounds terrible. We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. What if those exp

This sounds terrible. We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. What if those expert just published the stuff freely online instead. Surely that would be more productive and trustworthy. Reality is truly stupid.

jltsiren 2y ago
Is that different from a company doing R&D without releasing the results to the public? Experts working for private gain is the norm, not the exception. That kind of work also sounds incredibly boring. They probably have to pay their experts a lot more than it would normally cost to hire the same caliber of experts. Which would mean they are not generating very much private data.
civilized 2y ago
Hopefully it'll all be available in a fire sale when these companies finally have to be stripped for parts.
foreverobama 2y ago
[dead]
bossyTeacher 2y ago
> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. We are not. Open AI is
skissane 2y ago
> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. Because nobody else is willing to pay them to do that. Research grants, peer review publications, etc, are not set up to reward stuff like “produce one thousand random examples of expressing thoughtful uncertainty with respect to questions relevant to your discipline for which there is currently no consensus answer” > What if those expert just published the stuff freely online instead. Surely that would be more productive and trustworthy. I’m sure many of them would be happy to do so if someone is paying them
- ambicapter 2y ago
  Still kind of an absurdist comedy that no one wants to pay for expert opinions, but they _do_ want to pay for a realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion.
  - skissane 2y ago
    It isn't about what they are willing to pay for, it is about how much they are willing to pay for it. A "realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion" only costs US$20/month–and if you are willing to compromise a bit on correctness and/or privacy, you can even get it for free. No way you are getting a real expert at that price. Whereas, pool $20/month across millions of subscribers, and suddenly you have enough money – and, more importantly, future revenue growth prospects with which to convince investors to give you even more money – to afford roomfuls of real experts to try to get that "80% correct" percentage higher.
  - relativ575 2y ago
    People pay for expert opinion all the time. The experts also have realistic sounding but wrong opinion all the time, to the point that seeking 2nd opinion is the norm. Emphasize "2nd" there -- we can afford to only pay two, or at most a handful number of experts.
throwaway4aday 2y ago
If they published it freely then they wouldn't get paid. I thought everyone was mad about how there aren't enough employment opportunities for PhDs? Training LLMs on your area of expertise is surely preferable to working a dull office job that has nothing to do with what you studied.

jltsiren 2y ago

Is that different from a company doing R&D without releasing the results to the public? Experts working for private gain is the norm, not the exception. That kind of work also sounds incredibly boring. They probably have to pay their experts a lot more than it would normally cost to hire the same caliber of experts. Which would mean they are not generating very much private data.

civilized 2y ago

Hopefully it'll all be available in a fire sale when these companies finally have to be stripped for parts.

foreverobama 2y ago

[dead]

bossyTeacher 2y ago

> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. We are not. Open AI is

skissane 2y ago

> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. Because nobody else is willing to pay them to do that. Research grants, peer review publications, etc, are not set up to reward stuff like “produce one thousand random examples of expressing thoughtful uncertainty with respect to questions relevant to your discipline for which there is currently no consensus answer” > What if those expert just published the stuff freely online instead. Surely that would be more productive and trustworthy. I’m sure many of them would be happy to do so if someone is paying them

ambicapter 2y ago
Still kind of an absurdist comedy that no one wants to pay for expert opinions, but they _do_ want to pay for a realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion.
- skissane 2y ago
  It isn't about what they are willing to pay for, it is about how much they are willing to pay for it. A "realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion" only costs US$20/month–and if you are willing to compromise a bit on correctness and/or privacy, you can even get it for free. No way you are getting a real expert at that price. Whereas, pool $20/month across millions of subscribers, and suddenly you have enough money – and, more importantly, future revenue growth prospects with which to convince investors to give you even more money – to afford roomfuls of real experts to try to get that "80% correct" percentage higher.
- relativ575 2y ago
  People pay for expert opinion all the time. The experts also have realistic sounding but wrong opinion all the time, to the point that seeking 2nd opinion is the norm. Emphasize "2nd" there -- we can afford to only pay two, or at most a handful number of experts.

throwaway4aday 2y ago

If they published it freely then they wouldn't get paid. I thought everyone was mad about how there aren't enough employment opportunities for PhDs? Training LLMs on your area of expertise is surely preferable to working a dull office job that has nothing to do with what you studied.