Correction: OpenAI carried out an attack on RubyGems.
I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.
I am gobsmacked at the tech industry's seemly bottomless appetite for giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt.
September 2029: Whoops, our sentient nukes did a funny again!
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+m...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/25/us-military-uses-8-inch-flop...
From 1976! They're using 50 year old computers? That's amazing.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows that OpenAI is liable for the software they create and run.
Are they? What legal consequences have they suffered?
It's no different than when a company's machine cuts off a worker's finger. No one thinks "Gosh! The machine did it, not us."
I should have said: this is wildly unhinged.
No it isn't.
The LLM now reasons better! Set the thinking level! It learns!
All of these phrases are designed to give the impression that the LLM is an autonomous entity, when it is no such thing.
Even if I agree that LLM makers are using these terms in the way they were originally defined (which I don’t), my point is that they’re specifically being used to help falsely attribute agency to the algorithm when there is none, and especially to convince members of the general public who aren’t familiar with computer science papers from 70 years ago.
> computer science papers from 70 years ago
Those terms continue to be used in the community. They weren't used just once, 70 years ago. They've been used like that for 70 years up until today.
As I said already, the evidence is in the language they use, unless you think that OpenAI employees are dumb enough to genuinely believe that an LLM is “thinking.” (By the way, I’d love to see an historical, academic use of that term, which you’ve conveniently neglected to mention.) Anthropomorphizing their product benefits them.
> Those terms continue to be used in the community. They weren't used just once, 70 years ago.
I never said they weren’t used anymore or that they were used once. Once again, you’re not actually engaging with my argument, which is that the language they’re using is chosen specifically to fool people outside the community.
And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence.
The fact that they use the word "learning" does not imply they are trying to deceive the public. Sorry. It doesn't follow. AGAIN - these are the words that have been used for 70 years.
I have a question - if I made mechanical teeth and described its actions as "chewing", would I be trying to deceive you? Or would I just be using language in a new way, to explain an analogous situation, as has done with language for all time.
But... I get the feeling we may just have to agree to disagree here.
I hope you have a nice day.
No, I am stating that the term “machine learning” as used in the Samuel paper and continuously used by researchers and programmers in that context up until the present is distinctly different from the word “learning” as used in public-facing LLM chatbot product copy and press releases. And as far as I’m aware, “reasoning” and “thinking” have no historical analogues, they were just invented to describe something that is distinctly not reasoning or thinking in any prior sense of the words.
> I have a question - if I made mechanical teeth and described its actions as "chewing", would I be trying to deceive you?
No. If I designed an algorithm for mimicking grammatically-correct speech, which given a certain input produces (deterministically) a superficially plausible, fluent response, and described its actions as “thinking,” would I be trying to deceive you?
I am delighted to hear you agree with me.
Bye now.
Have a good one.
Your 'correction' is incorrect. A corporation did not carry out an attack. Humans did. And, as it happens, those humans were acting as agents to OpenAI, so the original title technically got it right. It is a poor title as anyone who doesn't give it much thought might mistake a human agent for an LLM agent so your symbolic effort to improve upon it is warranted, but sadly you missed the mark.
If we knew it was employees that did it then "OpenAI employees carried out an attack on RubyGems." would work, but since we don't know who did it "agent" is better in the sense that it also encompasses contractors, board members, etc. Of course, if we knew who did it then "<Person's name> carried out an attack on RubyGems" would be the way.
The joys of English.
The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments.
Did you try very hard "telling"?