Now I'm watching this thread for the consultant hired by the film to show up and explain why each of those goofs was caused by the director explicitly asking for them...
It's fascinating the extent to which all the models rely on text - it's like they have severe (but not total) aphantasia:
"We hypothesize that this phenomenon emerges predominantly from a misassumption about how these systems are trained. Modern multimodal models are developed on web-scale corpora and are commonly built on top of pretrained large language models, which makes them extraordinarily strong at language modeling, retrieval of statistical regularities, and reconstruction of likely contexts from sparse cues.[48, 25, 24] During the multimodal training, the models are presented with the image, a textual question, and are expected to reconstruct the correct answer. Lacking access to an entire text corpora, a human would intuitively answer the question based on the image in that setup; but we should not infer that this would be the default approach for an AI model. Incentivized to generate the correct next tokens, models might learn to easily ignore the visual information and rely only on their vast prior knowledge, taking the shortest route to the correct answer.[36, 5, 48]"
The crazy thing is that based just on the text in the questions a model was able to "guess" answers:
"When fine-tuned on the public training set of this dataset with images removed (i.e., trained in mirage-mode), our 3-billion-parameter, text-only super-guesser outperformed all frontier multimodal models, including those exceeding hundreds of billions of parameters, on the held-out test benchmark (Figure 3c). It also surpassed human radiologists by more than 10% on average, relying entirely on hidden textual cues in the questions and the structural patterns of the benchmark. In addition, our super-guesser was able to create reasoning traces comparable to, and in some cases indistinguishable from, those of the ground-truth or those generated by frontier multi-modal AI models."
A protest demonstrates a level of unhappiness with a group or policy. People may not believe what they see on the news, facebook, or youtube, but hopefully we have not reached a point where they refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes.
The point is to demonstrate "we are not alone in this feeling", that's it...
Chesterton's point wasn't that the fence should never move (which is what you seem to be implying), but that it should only be moved (or technically removed) when you understand why it was initially put in place.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is bloat and over-regulation, but most of the laws and regulations on the books are in response to a bad thing happening. It's kind of like a legacy code base - just deleting the repo and starting over from scratch is usually not the best idea, it takes some careful refactoring and judicious tests to move in the right direction.
It's sort of an interesting idea - what are "tests" in the context of the legal/regulatory framework? The constitution? The judiciary?
Yeah, it's hard to go back to wading through SEO-optimized BS after just getting a decent answer (which, to be fair to the AI-sceptics, you do have to think about before using blindly).
It's an interesting mental shift - I wasn't googling because I wanted to find a web page, I was googling because I wanted an answer to a question. An AR or mixed-mode personal assistant is going to be a game changer.
You sound like a Dutch person. Working with different cultures I've had to adapt to varying levels of directness but like to think it's helped me become more up-front. I've learned to appreciate people that say what they're thinking, so you can avoid the 2nd and 3rd order analysis about intent and thoughts about how other people will receive things.