I think addressing people's expression of skepticism of the average motives of journalists by simply making the unqualified claim that the people expressing skepticism "know nothing" made the opposite point than you intended.
This is an article posted to Hacker News where a defendant was incarcerated by a judge for media manipulation, and journalists who were involved made statements to the judge in support of the defendant. Since the defendant was incarcerated, that makes the journalists involved closer to malfeasant than not, but the entirety of your claim is that there is never malfeasance involved in journalism and the skepticism of the people you're reprimanding is simply "populism." Frankly, that comes off as a bit malfeasant, in the reflexively defensive sense.
Would you like to claim I "know nothing" about the profession of journalism as well? How would you know that I know nothing about the profession of journalism?
In the author’s defense they mentioned the NASA standard, and that guide— while legendary— isn't a "lacing" guide. Of the 50+ images, only 2 show lacing (acceptable v. unacceptable), and the rest is spot tying, zip tying or other harnessing. Always nice to see the link though
You’ve clearly been a victim of victims before. Your detailed analysis of these harms they’ve performed against you, and your warning not to listen to victims, is very concise, detailed, and clearly derived from experience. I think you’re right, I won’t take advice from someone trapped in a victimhood mentality
Edit: The current HN bio of this user amazes me. "Used to have close to 1000 karma, got destroyed over time by hackernews cancel culture and a change in downvote algorithms." This user is literally the victim who doesn't know that they're a victim that they "see all the time." This makes perfect sense, assuming they own mirrors
Now, if I had a victimhood mentality, I would be decrying the fact that this comment was downvoted. But I won't, because the downvoting is a positive that helps prove my point. Thank you for the downvote, unknown victim of victims, I am eternally grateful to you and your kind
This is exactly what happened in digital audio signal processing and recording, where word size represents amplitude. 12-bit audio was the first word size that provided a pretty good noise floor by the late 1980s, a real improvement over 8-bit. And by the mid-80s the CD format was already providing 16-bits for playback, which really is good enough for most playback scenarios. The 16-bit DSP era was just a few years longer than the 12-bit and quickly gave way to 24-bit, which provides a noise floor good enough for almost anything audio processing and recording related and is still the standard after more than 20 years. I have gear that defaults to 32-bit now, obviously just for power-of-2 convenience in software dev, which is annoying because the file sizes are bigger for basically no reason.
(The master buses in DAWs and digital hardware use even larger word lengths these days, but it's not really the same thing, that's a summing and calculation process)
The workflow update-deps.yaml will periodically check for new updates of SBCL or the linked libraries. If an update is found, it edits build.env and creates a pull request that will check that the set of dependencies can be compiled and linked without errors.
McQuillan’s central point here that ChatGPT is a “bullshit generator” and not “artifically intelligent” is really apt. What we’re often working on in the industry is emulating the worst uses of intelligence processes, that humans also use, like optimized BS generation. Seeing ChatGPT turn into the equivalent of a competent essay-spitting undergrad is distressing; the internet is now such a mass of human-generated BS, it's hard to believe people will be arguing and competing with machine optimized and generated BS speech.
The most powerful and effective and immediately available BS generators will probably rely on machine-generated, unhinged speech. I truly fear for the future of the few reputable internet forums left, because even intelligent people tend to engage with well-optimized BS generators, whether driven by human or machine.
Meta comment: I understand why this was downvoted and am impressed (not complaining at all) but please keep in mind that the top of the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677527) was later hijacked by a completely unrelated sensationalist political issue. The initial comment that caused that was later deleted, yet somehow its responses remained at the top:
Been reading HN since 2006 or so and started going to meetups from it soon after that. A bit sad to see how threads can get hijacked by a comment as low value as "GPT is a calculator for words" directly into a sensationalist political issue.
Yup, you’re dead on, that’s how "engagement" tends to work, but hook is not also line and sinker, no? So advanced speech generation models are now having to account for engagement— contextually— as well. It’s all getting much more refined, somewhat rapidly, but not necessarily truly usefully
Edit: At the time of this comment, that 1/7 sentences had generated almost all of the 84 resulting comments. I had been hoping for more like 20% comments on the other parts, or more people to latch on to the behavioral aspect of trained model content generation, but whatevs
I kind of do think some people do get hired to continue to be like undergrads, and ChatGPT is turning into a pretty good undergrad. I really don’t know what the progression is going to be, but it seems like a widening in the middle of Moravec’s Pdx or something. Algorithmic management is next on the block and tools like GPT will be (and are) involved: [edit:algo stuff] took over a lot of content-making decisions in media concerns years ago, for example.
The results of that aren’t nearly as straightforward as was being portrayed (and so much capital injection was involved too) but what if models trained on known employee behavior really can understand the incentives that would work for individual employees at a finer grain than your typical middle manager? With all the data gleaned from the employee’s work computer etc? And blaming the algo has already become a national pastime!!
It could get weird once trained models start to emulate the behavioral and suggestion parts of communication, and soon. But we tend to want to minimize the behavioral aspect in favor of the raw computation aspect, despite the fact that generative models are creating content based on the behavior they learned from a training process, which is a behavioral training process, distinct from an imperative instruction writing process.
I think a lot of it comes down to that on this whole TFA commentary. People haven’t totally adjusted to the fact that there is a material difference between trained generative models that produce and written imperative sequences that compute. What the difference is and implications isn’t exactly clear, but certainty is not really on the table anytime soon
Spoken like a truly based groyper. :D I understand, yes, all things are composed of atoms, electrons, etc. All computation is achieved through calculation, or to be more precise, processes like execution of instructions and transistor flipping. How is this illuminating for doing anything practical other than circuit design, exactly? And why couldn't my Texas Instruments write me a blog post that fools thousands?
Agreed that comparing everything to our (very incomplete) understanding of human cognition & intelligence quickly gets into metaphysical-style speculation of the human vs. the animal vs. the machine type that I don’t have much time for. We use the same language for all types of intelligence and it can bring out the pedantry in people.
But let’s say I’m facing a door with a mail slot in it and I suddenly feel the barrel of a gun in my back, and a strange voice says “Don’t you dare turn around, and put your wallet in the slot or I shoot.” I can’t see anything other than the door. Do I care if the entity with the gun is a short man, a tall woman, or three mutant badgers in a trenchcoat?
I see. I call this the “all code is just a really big abacus” argument. Others call it algorithmic reductionism or essentialism, and I will argue for it too in many cases. (I don’t get too bent out of shape about it, even when shallow depth of human thought may have security implications down the line.)
How about generative adversarial networks? Are they just calculators too?
Conversely, someone could argue you might be under thinking the behavioral-style implications of what the word training means in machine decision making scenarios. Think about something like a GAN, even. The concepts at play are not as simplistic as some people want them to be, when they make reductive comparisons to SQL injection attacks and the like.
One could also argue that veering too far in one specific direction over the other in “thinking” on these subjects has more considerable potential negative consequences.
That's more or less correct. My post was targeted to the investor segment of HN readership about labor automation, displacement, and re-valuation. The coder/techaesthete segment has focused exclusively on 1/7 sentences of my comment, as noted here, 20 min before your post, that quoted the 1/7 literally:
Lol on the "chicken"x4 plan, here’s hoping. I’ll let you in on a tiny secret: I only really focus on the incentives exploit in one of seven sentences in the OP. I agree, the Reddit premise is a bit of a stretch, but not to the breaking point. What happened is all the discussion generated here has focused on the 1/7 of the sentences I wrote that were germaine to the kind of “gossipy” TFA, that discussion not being meritless at all. But the rest of my post is the real meat and potatoes of what I wanted to communicate on the subject, about labor displacement and re-valuation, and I theorize that’s what’s being upvoted, with no ability to qualify that statement whatsoever!
I couldn’t disagree more that our heuristics don’t fail constantly, especially at the group level, but please do send the link to buy the tinted lens glasses you’re wearing. I want a pair ;)
In all seriousness I agree tho, intelligence does not strictly cover ethics and morals, but we are headed into boundless territory there if we continue
I think it's not so much “buying" it, as understanding the larger point that’s being made about the class of technology in order to make much more critical points. Quibbling over the later stages of exploit execution instead of focusing on all the classes of vulnerabilities that lead to exploits don’t necessarily make us more secure either, as is sometimes claimed
This is an article posted to Hacker News where a defendant was incarcerated by a judge for media manipulation, and journalists who were involved made statements to the judge in support of the defendant. Since the defendant was incarcerated, that makes the journalists involved closer to malfeasant than not, but the entirety of your claim is that there is never malfeasance involved in journalism and the skepticism of the people you're reprimanding is simply "populism." Frankly, that comes off as a bit malfeasant, in the reflexively defensive sense.
Would you like to claim I "know nothing" about the profession of journalism as well? How would you know that I know nothing about the profession of journalism?