simianwords

5 ms·

61.
by simianwords 25d ago
No it’s not fixed like that. Total prosperity of world has increased inflation adjusted over 100 years. Why? Surprised basic stuff is now being questioned.
62.
by simianwords 25d ago
If it’s a fixed pie why do we have more collectively now than 200 years ago? Value also comes from technology which you seem to suspiciously remove
63.
by simianwords 25d ago
You do realise it’s not a fixed pie right?
64.
by simianwords 26d ago
Here are the cope points 1. Navier Stokes was plagiarism 2. All benchmarks were misleading wrong and incorrect 3. All other mathematical advances were again hype 4. HF incident was marketting ploy jointly coordinated by HF, METR and OpenAI
65.
by simianwords 26d ago
I'm willing to at least listen to conspiracy theories but this makes no sense.. OpenAI and Anthropic have more to lose by pausing than these rando Chinese companies.
66.
by simianwords 26d ago
unexpected marx/acc. Still lazy Marxist rhetoric (capital, means of production, revolution, masses)
67.
by simianwords 26d ago
This line will keep repeating because it is necessary for the narrative: AI in general is just hype and unprofitable and all these companies are playing marketing tricks before the IPO after which they will cash out and let the economy
68.
by simianwords 27d ago
Is this done even if you turn off the consent? How come there's no answer to this?
69.
by simianwords 27d ago
That’s an interesting way to look at it but I don’t think it maps one to one. Like we could build a car but a car hasn’t just evolved. Anyway it’s a somewhat good proxy but I fundamentally don’t think robots with dexterity is harder than co
70.
by simianwords 27d ago
Here's my pushback: a lot of these capabilities are correlated. So someone reading this would think "oh there's so many different things needed" but that's not true. IMO the long horizon thing is one part and physic
71.
by simianwords 27d ago
> Whether it's caveman the kinda guy who honestly thinks caveman.md reduces costs, actually adds it to his system prompt and is painstakingly reading the terse output
72.
by simianwords 27d ago
Nice, I really do think that the main unsolved problem is making robots that have the physical dexterity maintain and create Data Centres all the way down - mine raw materials, solar farms for energy, create chips from ground up etc. But yo
73.
by simianwords 27d ago
> also makes people believe they understand more than they do, because every answer comes so easily to them. But the LLMs are easily steered and tend to agree with what you want them to say. Well agree to disagree but my load bearing cla
74.
by simianwords 27d ago
I think it is amazing and it will democratise information. A lot of times the concept ends up being simple with a lot of jargon exists as a gatekeeping method. Well of course the incumbents wouldn't like that rando from outside gets to
75.
by simianwords 28d ago
step 7 cash, in on the ipo before the bubble bursts
76.
by simianwords 28d ago
> The Wednesday evening statement from OpenAI was more emphatic: “We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training.” &
77.
by simianwords 28d ago
the same type of people will eventually hate it when AI actually starts profiting at which point they will ask for redistribution. damned if you do. damned if you don't.
78.
by simianwords 28d ago
this is an effective way to stop OpenAI from doing anything, just flood it with your attempts.
79.
by simianwords 28d ago
Happy to bet 5 years.
80.
by simianwords 28d ago
this is FUD and I can have a bet with you that this won't happen in 3 years (or ever) [1]. post-training on specific brands is hard and affects overall accuracy, doesn't offer explainability, long cadence, no run time auction.. mo
81.
by simianwords 28d ago
nah this will never happen. do you really think they will do post training based on who pays them more?
82.
by simianwords 28d ago
I get it, but what option does OpenAI have here other than to present the two options?
83.
by simianwords 28d ago
so what option do you leave them with? they are giving both alternatives and clearly stating both do the same thing underneath. there's literally nothing else they could have done here.
84.
by simianwords 29d ago
Can anyone explain to me why Tristan simply didn't go to settings page and turn off the thing? Especially when Levent was collaborating with him and Levent is completely aware of how the training data is used and the implications there
85.
by simianwords 29d ago
> but there is a better way to do it. This looks incorrect. OpenAI have flat out said that there's no need of doing this and both ways are equivalent > We respect our users' choice whether to use their data to “improve our m
86.
by simianwords 29d ago
i'm kinda hating how privacy is becoming a boogeyman to oppose literally anything. i'm predicting that public will catch hold of this rhetoric eventually. literally any. single. thing. gets opposed on privacy grounds. and its a go
87.
by simianwords 29d ago
What did you ask it? It’s pretty clear that share of disposable income is more or less flat for handcrafted furniture which is cherry picked.
88.
by simianwords 29d ago
Yeah how desperate to literally solve a Millenium problem? They sure look stupid now. You’ve caught them!
89.
by simianwords 29d ago
Comment that will age poorly
90.
by simianwords 29d ago
On looped transformers: previously, conversation might have 50k tokens spent on reasoning. the next turn takes all the previous tokens as well (if you wanna preserve prompt caching) which is not ideal. this new method skips that so you get

More ›