Factuality is orthogonal to political leaning generally. People can use the same set of facts and come to very different conclusions. That’s a separate issue from “are these facts correct” and what happens when an individual or entire party starts getting most of their news from highly partisan and unreliable sources.
In most cases it seems (at least to me and colleagues) to be turning out that picking best intelligence is a better option than picking better intelligence / dollar, assuming you can afford the cost. At least on interesting problems. If you’re doing generic web dev work, probably not the case.
The federal government and the executive branch has a well specified set of responsibilities to the people of this country, and they are massively failing at just about every metric. So yes, they are truly incompetent.
To be pedantic, tests prove that the code passes the test suite, nothing else. They do not prove by themselves that the code is correct, secure, maintainable, efficient, etc. Those are much harder to measure and have a ton to do with organization, architecture, culture, shared knowledge of the maintainers, etc. All of which is lacking during and after this rewrite.
I do not work in the space at all, but it seems like Cloudflare has been having more network disruptions lately than they used to. To anyone who deals with this sort of thing, is that just recency bias?
I think both your statement and their statement are too strong. There is no reason to think LLMs can do everything a human can do, which seems to be your implication. On the other hand, the technology is still improving, so maybe it’ll get there.
Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. And i think it’s fair to say the best and brightest at Google aren’t turning their attention to YouTube lately. Except maybe to make training datasets for Gemini N+1 :)
The unspoken assertion that Rust and Python are interchangeable is pretty wild and needs significant defense, I think. I know a lot of scientists who would see their first borrow checker error and immediately move back to Python/C++/Matlab/Fortran/Julia and never consider rust again.
To be fair, triton is in active use, and this should be even more ergonomic for Python users than triton. I dont think it’s a sure thing, but I wouldn’t say it has zero chance either.
Generally the game is created by external forces, not the players. If you’re an independently wealthy individual you can afford to work for pleasure. The rest of us? We like to eat and live in comfortable dwellings and take care of our families, so we play the game of pleasing our superiors in return for the money to live a comfortable existence.
I work for an automotive OEM, and when a car has a serious recall, I don’t get to say “gee it’s frustrating to see the whole of my company get smeared for one engineering mistake I wasn’t a part of.” There’s no reason for customers or the public to try and figure out exactly what part of the company failed. It’s a systemic failure of the entire company, and it reflects negatively on all of us.
Same for you. You either need to fix Google’s long term support issues from the inside, or expect more of the same.
It can’t stop me from accessing index 1 when I meant 0 on a 3d array, so I think the claim doesn’t make much sense. Rust can stop me from accessing index N+1 though, which is useful for security. Of course almost every language also has support for bounds checked arrays either in their core or their standard library, and some for of array iterators, so I don’t think that’s a particularly compelling reason to choose Rust.
I strongly suspect you’ve never been on the end of an internet doxxing/hate brigade if you can’t imagine how this could be used to make someone’s life a living hell.
I’ll explain again that I think they can be used for bad actions, and also that they should still be released, because the benefits will outweigh the negatives. It does not hurt to admit that some things can be dangerous when used in nefarious ways. No one suggests we ban kitchen knives even though they are lethal, because their utility is massive, and outweighs their danger. In much the same way these models have extreme utility, that almost certainly outweighs their potential negatives.
I believe you misunderstood my post. (Or I have misunderstood yours) I was not arguing that the models should not be released. I was pointing out that the statement that no harm has been done with them was false, and that even though that is the case it is probably better for society, on the whole, for them to be open.
We can both admit that the tools can and will be used for bad purposes, and come to the conclusion that their benefits outweigh the negatives. We would not be doing any favors to our own arguments by pretending otherwise.
There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to.
Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.
There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet, but these things are getting better fast, so it’s only a matter of time. The problem is that there’s no way to mitigate those risks except to keep the model behind an inference-only API, or not release it at all - as soon as the model is open sourced then fine-tuning the model can introduce whatever behavior you want. Holding the models back is virtue signaling at best and actively harmful at worst, because it draws attention from individuals who will take it as a challenge to find ways to misuse them, and cuts businesses and the open source community off from models that would otherwise be very useful to them, that they could help to improve. I’m concerned this is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, where more companies will start to do the same thing, primarily because it’s what everyone else is doing.
I remember fondly when I had an iPod, the one time I had an issue with it (can’t remember what, honestly), I just walked into an apple store and probably 5-10 minutes later walked out with a new device, free of charge, no questions asked (after they tried resetting it once)
I’m sure someone in these companies has made a spreadsheet that shows permissive repair and replacement policies cost $X million a year, but it probably doesn’t take into account that the experience with the iPod directly led to me purchasing multiple iPhones and Macs.