beyarkay

6 ms·

31.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Yes, this interpretation was my intended interpretation. Although I'll admit, I think I could have been more explicit
32.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Fair point. I'd nit-pick and say that "significant" doesn't necessarily mean large, but I was definitely surprised by anthropic's work
33.
by beyarkay 1y ago
The Matrix only had people being batteries because a movie without humans in it isn't a fun movie to watch.
34.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Given that AI couldn't even speak English 6 years ago, do you really think it's going to struggle with unit tests for the next 20 years? It's well worth looking at https://progress.openai.com/ , here's a
35.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Given that they both seem pretty bad, it seems wrong to not consider them both dangerous and make plans for both of them?
36.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> To my understanding this is managed by the temperature This is true, but sampling also plays a fairly large role. The model will produce probabilities for the next token, temperature will modify these probabilities somewhat, but diff
37.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Bosses rely on their employees brains, but only after multiple rounds of interviews and reference checks to ensure the brain they're getting is reliable enough for the job. No boss relies on arbitrary brains taken off the street.
38.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> At any frame we can pause, examine the state, then step forward, examine the state, and observe what changes have occurred This example from software doesn't meaningfully hold for neural networks. It's a bit like trying to wa
39.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Kinda, but if another human repeatedly showed signs of being dishonest or untrustworthy, we wouldn't be happy to work with them. Suspicion of unknown entities is good.
40.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> But with LLMs is there really more to understand? Yes! loads! (: I want to be able to say statements like "this model will never ask the user to kill themselves" and be confident, but I can't do that today, and we don&#x
41.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> With mixture of expert systems we’re introducing dedicated subsystems into the llm responsible for specific aspect of the llm Common misconception, MoEs do have different "experts", but the model learns when to send input to
42.
by beyarkay 1y ago
I thought I could do just this, but alas, [some people][1] are very convinced that we know how these things work. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o6n5ne/why...
43.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Indeed, this has been the most contentious line in the whole piece :D How do you define "perfect" data and training? I'd argue that if you trained a small NN to play tic-tac-toe perfectly, it'd quickly memorise all the p
44.
by beyarkay 1y ago
I'll totally grant that thing will get better over time. But a point that I was (mostly failing) to make, is that software is discrete, NNs are continuous. No matter how buggy your program is, it's got a countable number of lines,
45.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Just want to say that you're the only person I've read who's come up with "ways to improve ML system" that I've agreed with. Thank you.
46.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> AI doesn't "act" at all unless you, the developer, use it for actions This seems like a pointless definition of "act"? someone else could use the AI for actions which affect me, in which case I'm very much
47.
by beyarkay 1y ago
> Granted this is not super common in these tools, but it is essentially unheard of in junior devs. I wonder if it's unheard of in junior devs because they're all saints, or because they're not talented enough to get away
48.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Thanks! I'm very interested in mechanistic intepretability, specifically Anthropic and Neel Nanda's work, so this impossibility of proving safety is a core concept for me.
49.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Hopefully we'll get examples of smart applications of AI making things better
50.
by beyarkay 1y ago
To be fair, I'd rather be scared by false positives than sleep through false negatives
51.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Soon they'll release a "notifications summary digest" that summarises the summaries
52.
by beyarkay 1y ago
What do you love about the notification summaries? I'm hearing a lot of hate for them
53.
by beyarkay 1y ago
I didn't realise this was a feature, very cool!
54.
by beyarkay 1y ago
It's such a testament to how good they used to be, that years and years of dropping the ball still leaves them better than everyone else. Maybe they were actually just much better than anyone was willing to pay for, and the market just
55.
by beyarkay 1y ago
The regular ChatGPT 5 seems pretty reliable to me? I ~never get crazy output unless I'm pasting a jailbreak prompt I saw on twitter. It might not always meet my standards, but that's true of a lot of things.
56.
by beyarkay 1y ago
I could also imagine that Apple execs might be too proud to use someone else's AI, and so wanted to train their own from scratch, but ultimately failed to do this. Totally agree that this smells like a people failure rather than a tech
57.
by beyarkay 1y ago
Apple is a good example. I kinda still can't believe they've done basically nothing, despite investing so heavily in apple silicon and MLX. Also kinda crazy that all the "native" voice assistants are still terrible, desp
58.
Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI(boydkane.com)
537 points by beyarkay 1y ago|452 comments
59.
Downloaded more for business, or pleasure?(boydkane.com)
2 points by beyarkay 1y ago|0 comments
60.
by beyarkay 1y ago
(author here) I agree, although I only realised this after the essay hit the internet. I think keeping things simple probably helped with the overall argument, but polarising things into "experts" and "novices" isn'

More ›