It's implied, and I'm hoping it's true, that this is a map-less navigation. Which is impressive. This kind of task is much easier if you have a pre-captured map of the environment, but if they are doing this without a map it's great. Historically you were always faced with "The Kidnapped Robot" problem where robots that didn't know where they were couldn't navigate even a little bit. Here the robot appears to be able to follow directions as long as they are interpretable from its current vision (or via dead reckoning).
Even though it said ""Unbelievable. Are you actually Stephen Fry in disguise?" it still estimates I know less than half the English vocabulary. Humbling.
This is search. Please don't reinvent search with a new acronym.
Agents can use Google. They can also see all the same signals humans do to judge quality. Maybe there's a need for a specialized directory, but does it need a spec or an acronym? No.
Not a physician. Some observations on these statements.
The predicate is "given how we practice medicine and the limits of humans ability to interpret the imaging modalities we have."
The more specific predicate is "for my specialty would this replace or prove superior to the tools that I have?"
Both of these are totally reasonable, however the history of medicine, and science in general, is that creating new ways to look at things has a tendency to reveal information that we never knew we needed.
For example, for years I thought of blood sugar as something that was either in a good or bad range. Then I tried a continuous blood sugar monitor. The full picture of the body's response to specific foods that I ate was eye opening. There's so much more to learn when you get a higher resolution (temporal in that case) view into your body.
Another wonderfully hopeful example is the retinal imaging ML work done by google. A completely non-invasive image of the retina for diabetic issues, that also happened to be able to predict things like age, sex, smoking status, previous cardiac events and more! Just take high-res pictures of things! The body is interconnected in ways that you can infer from one system so much about others.
So while I don't think anything the Dr. said is "wrong", I think it represents a very common blinkered mindset of pragmatic practitioners who need to deliver reliable performance daily.
Shutting down the growth prospects of a company based, not on its behavior, but on the capability of its models right before the IPOs of the companies you're going to profit from is staggeringly dumb. Yes the public is stupid when it comes to investing in stocks, but come on. If these companies growth prospects rest in large part on continuing to improve their products and the government said that if they do they face National Security Cease and Desist letters, then investing is a bad idea.
The selfish / corrupt thing to do is to do this after you've fleeced the public.
Ah, ok. There's a whole body of literature here that I think divides our opinions. I would recommend "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare)" to start. The history of effective change in the face of organizations acting in bad faith may not be what you think it is.
Sorry if I was unclear. I don't work in finance. I do work with agents. I think expert engineers in finance who are guiding agents are adding a lot of value because of their knowledge of finance. Because I lack that knowledge of finance, even given access to agents, I would not accept a role guiding agents in a finance company because I wouldn't be able to guide the agents well and my/our output would be bad.
"I ended up working in software development roles in the domains of finance, bookkeeping and payment processing, where I had great autonomy and a close and candid relationship with Product Managers and stakeholders.
I learnt a lot about the domain and how to effectively write programs for it: PCI compliance, double-entry ledgers, escrows, reconciliation, payment lifecycles, bank transfer idempotency, etc.
It was, then, obvious that I should focus my career on becoming an expert on that domain to stand out as a professional and differentiate myself in a field that showed signs of an increasing need for domain specialists."
The point being that we're beyond where that's a responsible choice. Empathy for an organization enforcing its rules above the actions of those protesting them means either an ideological alignment with the censorship or an ignorance/disbelief of the severity of the harm the organization is causing. The former audience will never be persuaded. The latter require education and persuasion, and while its useful to create a sense of martyrdom via forcing the enemy to act in an obviously unreasonable fashion, it's a waste of time to argue with their definitions of rules. If the rule were "you are not allowed to say the governing body is corrupt" and they say its corrupt, that exposes clearly and plainly the problem, and enforcement of the rule provides no authority because the rule itself is obviously designed to quash dissent. If the listener is so blithely oblivious to how the intent of a rule has been manipulated to quash dissent, as it has here, then there is no loss in squarely addressing that. "We are protesting your abandonment of scientific principles" is both what they were doing and should be doing.
Wut? I pilot LLMs all day but there's no way in hell I'd agree to be at the helm of a finance product. That first pillar is still there. Maybe the author isn't aware of the impact they have, but I know, with the evidence of reverted PRs, that when I step outside my area of deep knowledge I can no longer call BS on the agents. Our most capable agent, with access to the same kind of distributed systems the author talks about, is regularly wrong, frequently myopic, and just outright dumb constantly. It's the expertise of engineers on the team that push it back on track.
A reminder to anyone who finds themselves in this kind of situation, do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules. So here, where they question whether or not they were "protesting" distracts from the reality of a censorious organization that will weaponize regulations it controls without good faith. Instead you need a simple, memorable statement of condemnation which is repeated consistently and a clear action which those who hear it can take in response.
"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
This is a great move for OpenAI and one that should worry Anthropic. Bedrock was the only way I could use foundation models for a while given AWS lock-in and security requirements.
Putting two adaptive dynamic systems next to each other is tricky. Your eyes and these glasses could easily create a positive or negative feedback loop or begin oscillating. So while cool I hope they have some experienced controls people on staff to detect and prevent such things.
@iandanforth
Source available - https://www.openhumans.org/member/iandanforth/
meet.hn/city/us-Pittsburgh