trention

27 ms·

271.
by trention 4y ago
He meant fixing the output(s) not the model that produced them.
272.
by trention 4y ago
It's not enough to state that the human mind is a pattern matcher as pretty much everyone of the "scale is all you need" crowd does. You have to prove it too. Otherwise it's just a variant of Russell's teapot.
273.
by trention 4y ago
The fact that something is "an inevitability" (which is definitely not the case here) has nothing to do with whether it's a net negative or not. This is like saying "you should classify this as blue" and then a resp
274.
by trention 4y ago
>I personally know multiple people doing this full time at large tech companies. The failure mode of internal "ethical" control at private enterprises is well-known and has already played out (at least) once when we tried to re
275.
by trention 4y ago
There are enough people criticizing both current language models and the overall "quest" towards AGI that come from a non-political (unless you subscribe to an aristotelian everything-is-politics) perspective. I personally don&#x2
276.
by trention 4y ago
I am curious what is the reasoning behind "giving "good guys" access to language models will {deus ex machina} and thus allow us to prevent the spam and abuse".
277.
by trention 4y ago
Here is one prediction: Because of language models, the amount of fake news online will increase by an order of magnitude (at least) before this decade ends. And there is no interpretation of that development as anything else but a net nega
278.
by trention 4y ago
And I will be very happy if I had the famous ability of Midas whenever I willed so but that's not the question. Those "super happy" people will themselves be automated away from their jobs by AIs at roughly the same point as
279.
by trention 4y ago
So it's indeed not "without victims", is it? Bonus points for reading comprehension and "coherent" comparison between automating physical and cognitive labor. Devaluing all human intelligence (which is what the endg
280.
by trention 4y ago
>Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human Fundamentally, it's absolutely OK to allow humans to do the thing X and to prohibit AI from doing it. This is what I hope will happen here (though it probab
281.
by trention 4y ago
>should never be found in the hands of another person I am absolutely fine with other people using my code. I am not fine with my code being used by AIs whose only ultimate goal is to make me unemployable while simultaneously generate a
282.
by trention 4y ago
Potential output has nothing to do with the question whether the training data is "memorized" in the weights or not. To me, the answer to the latter question is "obviously yes".
283.
by trention 4y ago
"that has no obvious victims" Come back with that line when the absolute number (not to mention the pay) of developer jobs worldwide starts decreasing because of this. It will probably happen by the end of the next decade.
284.
by trention 4y ago
Copilot currently is very far from being able to cut 33% of the time spend writing code, let alone 33% of the working time of the average software engineer. In 3-4 years - maybe, but not now. That being said, luddism was a thing for obvious
285.
by trention 4y ago
He wouldn't be at the top only if he was not using said way and his competitors were. This is of course missing the point. If chess enthusiasts knew that grandmasters were using AI to aid them when playing in tournaments, the interest
286.
by trention 4y ago
This is a practical (at most you could call it purely utilitarian) argument and not a deontological one.
287.
by trention 4y ago
There is a capability line that needs to be crossed before we start seeing this. Which I think most of those older systems didn't cross. For me, one answer to this could be given when we're able to compare the number of illustrato
288.
by trention 4y ago
I won't pretend to know the specifics of the legal decision that will follow from this, but it's easy to guess that when those tools start causing structural unemployment (and that will happen soon enough), there will be a backlas
289.
by trention 4y ago
That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. And doesn't contradict it actually. Saved costs will not translate to higher margins for those that cut them because all competitors will be able to slash them as well, resulting in lower p
290.
by trention 4y ago
If that happens, all art will simply have no value and art as % of GDP will plummet. Incidentally, this hasn't happened in areas where AI already dominates like chess and go. Magnus Carlsen alone probably generates more "revenue&q
291.
by trention 4y ago
Although I agree that a somehow less extreme version of that will happen in the course of this decade bar a legal decision to prohibit using those models, that won't translate to comparable revenues. The companies providing those servi
292.
by trention 4y ago
I am willing to bet that the revenue from AI-generated "art" will be smaller than the revenue from human-generated art in 5 years (or even 10 years) despite the former probably being at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in volume
293.
by trention 4y ago
It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.
294.
by trention 4y ago
None of those things had zero price and zero cost. The fact that the consumer didn't pay directly for them is irrelevant. You can try testing your theory by trying to sell a "painting" created by DALLE/whatever for more
295.
by trention 4y ago
I am not saying (in that last comment) what should happen, I am saying what will happen. Past automation in terms of impact is nothing compared to what's coming and people and lawmakers will react accordingly - not in favor of the auto
296.
by trention 4y ago
No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sh*t about it. The only real question is how w
297.
by trention 4y ago
Except that AI will not lead to "golden ages of art production" because nobody gives a sh*t about art created by AIs. And nobody will.
298.
by trention 4y ago
You are saying that the AI should be treated the same way as a person would regarding its 'output'. I disagree. This is a conceptual disagreement and you cannot just sweep under the rug "what cognition or creativity really ar
299.
by trention 4y ago
It's absolutely fine to allow humans to do that while prohibiting (commercialized) AI to do the same thing.
300.
by trention 4y ago
This is true for the current iteration of the model. Probably won't be true at least to an extent in 5 years. Besides, there is nothing wrong with solving boring problems. Not everyone can be Bjarne Stroustrup.

More ›