keeda

6 ms·

61.
by keeda 27d ago
That was in response to this part of OP's post: > If I had done this, I also wouldn't have pestered the researchers on a Sunday night to meet immediately so we could negotiate a nice way of presenting the actions I had decided
62.
by keeda 27d ago
I'm sure that's part of the reason for many, yes.
63.
by keeda 27d ago
But by OpenAI's telling they heard a rumor that the problem had already been solved. So they reached out to the other researchers as an attempt to share the credit, and in fact have at least one of them be the lead author (which is w
64.
by keeda 27d ago
Interesting, yeah... also just found out about "Advanced Account Security" which sounds like something a company would enable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49643999
65.
by keeda 27d ago
They used to burn witches too. I don't know if it was really effective, though, they kept finding witches all over.
66.
by keeda 27d ago
Did you encounter it too? (Trying to get a rough estimate of how many people are reporting it vs how many people aren't.)
67.
by keeda 27d ago
Actually no, the lack of evidence can be readily fixed by the researchers simply disclosing the pertinent parts of their notes and/or chats. The discovery has been scooped, so I don't see any value in keeping them private anymore.
68.
by keeda 27d ago
This was from last year, so surely the technology has changed, but you know what hasn’t changed in the meantime? The marketing around it. If Elon has been saying the same thing over the years that people have been dying, why would you trust
69.
by keeda 27d ago
I would not say they were bad, mostly just primitive compared to what we have today. I can only presume they are talking about GitHub Copilot which was released before ChatGPT. I believe at the time it was little more than “spicy autocomple
70.
by keeda 27d ago
It would be really useful if the researchers disclose their notes and/or chats (or the key pieces thereof) so people can determine how close their work was to whatever the models produced. I mean, now that they’ve been scooped, what va
71.
by keeda 27d ago
Bleat?
72.
by keeda 28d ago
If I wasn't so lazy I'd find and post the one where my Tesla slowed down to a stop at a red light, lulling me into a sense of security, and then without warning lurched forward and broke the red light. And this is not an isolated
73.
by keeda 28d ago
I think this topic is so contentious because people are not fully appreciating how absolutely weird these things are. To me this inscrutable weirdness, combined with their superhuman capabilities and rapid integration into multiple walks
74.
by keeda 28d ago
I’ve said it before, but Ballmer was exactly right WHEN he said that. I know because I was one of the very few people in my area, notable for being a tech hub, who had an iPhone at release… only because my employer at the time paid for it.
75.
by keeda 28d ago
I worked with GNU Radio quite a bit at one point a decade+ ago, even writing a custom C++ block, but I almost exclusively used it via Python rather than the GUI toolkit. I found it much quicker to mess around with flow graphs in code than t
76.
by keeda 28d ago
This is the closest I could find to a post mortem from the creator: https://yegge.ai/essays/the-shape-of-things-to-come/ But the GasTown part is barely a single paragraph that I could not make sense of. Like, what
77.
by keeda 29d ago
It's low-key funny that OpenAI attempted the problem because they thought somebody else had already solved it, but turned it had NOT in fact been solved! It's like that story about George Dantzig solving open problems as a student
78.
by keeda 29d ago
Yep, the last part in my post was suggesting some ways we could determine if "item X was in the training data" (as well as some potential blockers for that from OpenAI's perspective.)
79.
by keeda 29d ago
A 3rd possibility is that they simply have not been exposed to the best models available (which is extremely likely if you only use the free tier chatbots), and/or did not invest the effort needed to truly harness this new very weird n
80.
by keeda 29d ago
At the scale at which these models are now, regardless of whether they are proprietary or open weight or list their training datasets, there are hundreds of billions of works that have gone into trillions of parameters, each one providing t
81.
by keeda 1mo ago
I completely understand this change (esp. with regards to the change in type of problem) but I must appreciate the irony that this is essentially making it more efficent -- i.e. reducing costs -- to do a proof of work task, which aims to in
82.
by keeda 1mo ago
Yeah, I'm using PoW-based "DDOS defense mechanism" for a current project and had this thought too. I briefly looked into what it would take to exploit PoW to do something economically valuable like folding@home, and it looked
83.
by keeda 1mo ago
Surprised that there is no discussion on the technical aspects of TFA. Specifically, the emphasis on CoT monitoring that does not even mention the fact that models' CoT traces do not necessarily correspond to the internal "latent
84.
by keeda 1mo ago
> There are plenty of documented problems with water usage of data centres. I would not be so sure, this article seems pretty comprehensive in questioning these supposed problems: https://andymasley.com/writing/the
85.
by keeda 1mo ago
Traffic doesn’t need to be routed through it though, just tee’d to it,
86.
by keeda 1mo ago
I guess by definition if they’re doing such things they’re scammy… and aren’t 3rd party sellers the biggest contingent of sellers on Amazon? I mean, I found such listings for almost all of the things I recently shopped for, including water
87.
by keeda 1mo ago
Maybe not the same thing you’re seeing, but hiding the margin in shipping fees is a common and time-honored technique on e-commerce sites like Amazon and eBay. Find any regular product, sort by price lowest-to-highest, and witness the numbe
88.
by keeda 1mo ago
Key distinction though: Anthropic can be said to have "stolen" or pirated those books when they downloaded them illegally, but not when they trained Claude , because that same lawsuit found that training is fair use. Anthropomo
89.
by keeda 1mo ago
I think the problem is that decentralization is almost by definition antithetical to the ability to capitalize on something. As you indicated, decentralization means diffusion of control and power, which are essential to capitalize on that
90.
by keeda 1mo ago
Have you considered that's WHY they hired you?

More ›