What is the value of saying this when ChatGPT was released in 2022? There’s no way there’s enough data to make any meaningful extrapolation about anything.
> Why should we not expect a computer vision model to outperform humans on reading medical images?
Humans can identify. A computer vision model can return a statistical value. Both can make errors, but these errors are orthogonal to how we work and what is being asked of them. I think a CV model can absolutely provide value as augmentation. Identifying possible misses or a different diagnosis worth considering, but that is not what is being asked of them here. The pitch by Altman and Amodei is not to say, “This tool that might cost $1,000/month can help increase the accuracy of your diagnoses by 10%,” instead it’s, “This tool can allow you to keep 10% of your workers to monitor it and you can fire the rest. Also, the workers carry all the liability.”
> The human experts are literally just a trained biological neural network. In this domain they are not capable of anything a computer can't already do.
People need to stop making this baseless claim. Human beings are not stochastic computing devices, we are not neural networks. We don’t fully understand human cognition and intelligence. I have the highest confidence we will figure it out one day, though.
Yes, neural networks were based on a superficial view of the human brain, that’s it. For instance, it is biological impossible for the human brain to do backpropagation, which is kind of important for a modern neural net.
This really rubs me the wrong way because it's objectively false, but people keep bring it up because I think people want it to be true rather than accepting generative AI for what it is: a tool with a bunch of caveats.
I feel like the promise of these models is to help people make more informed decisions. Improving the knowledge economy and general understanding.
The problem is these are just statistical models at the end of the day, so you need to know something to be able to identify the errors. You can’t let them really be autonomous and you also can’t really have people turn into glorified approvers. If the machine is correct 89% of the time, you cannot make people responsible for that 11%. It’ll just cause automation fatigue.
tl;dr: the actual use cases of these LLM (or generative AI in general) is rather limited, so it is offensive how much hay has been given to them eating the entire capitalist system. They are not fit for purpose.
Some of this is just the nature of American culture. Acceptance/rejection of federal authority is often irrational and leads to this patchwork. For instance, replace this statement with a national gun registry and watch people flip out.
The policy of the United States is currently a roulette wheel suffering from dementia that believes that Siri is a Norwegian supermodel they can use to seed the future Herrenrasse.
This laissez-faire logic is insane, but I think it is telling that a lot of folks here seem to have this mindset and makes me empathize with increasingly nihilistic people.
I am agreeing with you, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I was just expressing frustration that a lot of people seem to think this is imposing some kind of undue burden on them when I’ve always just thought of it as the cost of existing in society is to…have some empathy?
Textualism is a scam wrapped in academic regalia. It is implausible on its face and arguing that “we only have the text to go off of” sounds nice and is demonstrably not how the law has been parsed.
> What communication other than the license could reasonably be provided?
Nobody encodes everything in text. No law can be fully represented in text. The law is a combination of many things including norms and customs at a moment in time. The law as written is a framework. This can be demonstrated pretty obviously in just how some laws are written intentionally vague because we have human beings to parse them for meaning and context. A legal/justice machine does not and will never exist as long as these are frameworks for human interaction. This is not a computable problem and attempting it to frame it as one is deeply harmful.
I have met a lot of EECS folks who think that the law is just a set of rules to be applied and that a consistent and fair decision will just “happen”. This is ridiculous and anyone who thinks this should be smacked with a copy of the Bluebook.
There is also kind of a spirit vs. letter of the law issue here. The intention and spirit in which this software is given out should and must inform how the law is interpreted. Arguing this isn't how the law works is just wrong. I stress this because it shows just how fuzzy the law really is. I think people want bright lines where they don't exist. I don't know what the obsession with this is, but it is unproductive.
I certainly understand that this desire to return to a more nuanced and more empathetic view of all of this has gradients, but I think I am just deeply saddened how any attempt to suggest that there were and should still be some implied cultural norms regarding expectations and the response from some folks really sounds like an angry Ayn Rand instead of a discussion about what that means. It’s just a blanket rejection for a lot of people here. Software is for people. The consumers are ultimately people. People are the only things that matter.
Like, you start a business and society—through the government and law has said—hey, you can’t refuse to serve people based on certain reasons. This is actively being attacked by some people with the same pathetic argument of, “You can’t tell me what to do. I hate X and it’s my free speech right to tell them to go pound sand. I never agreed to the civil rights acts!” It’s like the stupidest version of Ron Swanson.
Oak Park. Home to Frank Lloyd Wright’s original studio/home and multiple works designed by him? Birthplace and hometown of Ernest Hemingway?
A municipality comparable to Berkeley, California or New Rochelle, New York?
What?
I agree with you that a blanket statement of not talking to the police is ridiculous, but arguing that Oak Park is a good representation outside of affluent America is not to be taken seriously.
I still really don’t understand what is so entitled about asking for a level of base empathy and care from maintainers.
People now yell at you that their only obligation is whatever is spelled out in the license they attached to the code. I think this is the same place where the logic of Code = Law comes from. People who think that you can encode the legal/judicial system into a set of axioms. This is not how the law works nor is it how it is taught and asserting this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human systems. It is incredibly destructive when people start applying maths as ground rules for human interaction. People do not live in black/white. We live in grey.
I am certainly not old enough to have experienced it, but I would venture a guess that the reason the BSD/MIT licenses originally existed was so that the universities had a CYA clause. I think you can see this erosion from a group of people sharing software in academic and hobbyist circles into weird legal absolutism as software becomes more of a business. For instance, Bill Gates’ famous letter to hobbyists or the PKZIP fiasco.
Silicon Valley has always had a bit of a libertarian bent, but I really think a lot of people have spent a significant and successful effort at pushing it towards Objectivism.
Objectivism is a stupid, angry idea borne out of the atrocities of the Bolsheviks. It exists in a vacuum. Eddie Lampert named his yacht the Fountainhead which is amusing since, while I don’t question he has talent, he got millions in seed money to start his own fund from Richard Rainwater. Elon Musk is not some scrappy kid; the vast majority of founders are from comfortable and increasingly upper middle class families where they can tolerate the risk of failing with a reasonable safety margin and then delude themselves that they bootstrapped everything themselves.
Curtis Yarvin does not exist in a vacuum. These are awful people and the fact that we’ve allowed them to be taken seriously and control the conversation is…obscene.
When you ask it to give you a digest of current events or as a study aid how are you ensuring that what your reading is a valid representation of the source material? Has it never given you false information?
IMHO, the whole episode is just embarrassing. I have no doubt he’s just trying to do the right thing. You can disagree with the tactics, but the vitriol is outrageous. rsync is a gift to the world and we should be grateful and mindful of how much it has been quietly woven into the fabric of computing. rsync is taken for granted. This is not okay.
I volunteer and I don't tell people or believe they should be grateful that an event is happening because of the volunteers. I just don't find this logic compelling in the same way that you don't find my logic compelling either.
Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate that this is the position of you and a large chunk of folks, but I don’t think I’m ever going to fully understand it.
If you don’t mind me probing a little further, what is the motivation to work on it?
> they can fork it
I get that, but I also think it is too pat a narrative at the same time. I think the success of the project is both a testament to the effort that you and the Homebrew team have put into it. It is also an example of just how much effort any project really takes; this stuff doesn’t set itself up nor do all the patching required to make sure things behave as well as they do.