This is why it's essential for any enterprise that wants to keep long term growth going to build processes to catch and weed out stakeholders and employees that prioritize playing politics over actions that will further the progress of the company.
This is the biggest difference between companies that fade out, and the ones that keep being innovative as they grow.
Inaction in this regard leads to the company becoming top-heavy with people that have no clue on how to drive the company forwards, they only know how to climb the ladder.
I do wonder if they think they are fooling anyone, or if they are just that shameless.
One repeating issue we have had with our managers is they will try to label missing features as bugs, to put the blame on the product team when they have sold something unfeasible to a customer.
Another one is that they pretend that the feature was decided on long ago, when it was only briefly discussed and then decided against.
This is a optimization to prevent redundant calculations. If it was not performed the result would be the same, just served slightly slower.
The whitepaper you linked is a great one, I was all over it a few years back when we built our first models. It should be recommended reading for anyone interested in CS.
This is not a bad way of looking at it, if I may add a bit, the llm is a solid state system. The only thing that survives from one iteration to the next is the singular highest ranking token, the entire state and "thought process" of the network cannot be represented by a single token, which means that every strategy is encoded in it during training, as a lossy representation of the training data. By definition that is a database, not a thinking system, as the strategy is stored, not actively generated during usage.
The anthropomorphization of llms bother me, we don't need to pretend they are alive and thinking, at best that is marketing, at worst, by training the models to output human sounding conversations we are actively taking away the true potential these models could achieve by being ok with them being "simply a tool".
But pretending that they are intelligent is what brings in the investors, so that is what we are doing. This paper is just furthering that agenda.
Ah, yes, I remember Yarvin. His goal was to become a cult leader for billionaires whose brains had turned to mush from surrounding themselves with only yes-men for decades.
The theory was that their imagined sense of being above others would make them easy marks.
Apparently he was correct. What a wild timeline we are living in.
This is the biggest difference between companies that fade out, and the ones that keep being innovative as they grow.
Inaction in this regard leads to the company becoming top-heavy with people that have no clue on how to drive the company forwards, they only know how to climb the ladder.