667 karma · joined January 14, 2014
Whether it matters we don’t know yet, but it’s a fact worth noting. A better article might have tried to argue why it doesn’t matter
- Hyperscalers like Goog, Meta, Msft invest cash in Anthropic, OpenAI, in exchange for equity
- The ongoing investment actually boosts the valuations in the Anthr/OpenAI (new raises are done at higher valuations), so the valuation of the Hyperscaler's existing investments in Anthr/OpenAI increases, which gets recorded as Other Income in quarterly earnings
- Much of that invested cash will itself come back (circularly) to the hyperscalers as revenue since Anthropic and OpenAI spend a lot of money via datacenters etc.
On Other Income phenomenon, see for example, https://www.ft.com/content/be97df0a-76b1-4cb0-9ba4-d1117d8d1...
Also, there's apparently lots of off-balance sheet debt. For example https://www.ft.com/content/a0a07cce-6d19-4b1e-a73b-9855a06ba...
Is that AI or just horribly clichéd writing?
If you're going to fully vibe code a repo, maybe we should get the build artifacts (i.e., the claude session).
It won't match Anthropic or OpenAI, but it could be economic?
And in times of substantial inequality, they lag yet further.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
There will almost always exist loopholes in any scheme. Having wealth effectively buys you new loopholes. It's a (non)virtuous cycle. We need to tie tax to wealth level and be done with it.
For example, 20 years ago, few people would have imagined that you could build a fingerprint of a person from all their behaviors on the internet. You didn't need to regulate away certain kinds of data collection to prevent such fingerprinting because it wasn't possible. With ML and AI, it has become possible.
My point is that as technology improves, "de-identification" takes on new meaning. Whatever de-identification was 20 years ago is not what de-identification is today. And whatever de-identification was used here is probably insufficient to guarantee that customers can't be identified.
We need new regulations and we need them yesterday.
/sarc
Buses each have individual identifiers, even if they are tied to the same route.
Sales and corporate speak are like this: sycophantic language that seems plausible, ostensibly sounds good, but commits you to nothing.
The Claude trainers, as they themselves adapt to Claude's output, are collapsing in their own distribution, so even "new" from-human data is already contaminated.
The idea of memory does not seem to resolve this: if you allow the machine to "compact" its context, then you've given it a system which is analogous to our own evolving state. (Though this is undoubtedly still less expressive and meaningful than the one we have evolved as humans.)
One idea I've wondered about is our human capacity to induce subsequent mental states: I can effectively decide how I want to feel and take actions to create that feeling. It's not clear whether models exhibit any degree of privileged introspection into their own states. Is this important? I don't know. (Non)determinism also does not seem to resolve it; it's my understanding that there are plenty of philosophers and researchers who think that human behavior is deterministic, or that the question of determinism does not matter.
No. You should never have to try to figure out what companies are collecting or how they are using it. They should not ever be allowed to aggregate data at the individual level. And if aggregate data ever becomes fine-grained enough to fingerprint individuals, then regulation should force coarser graining. (This would mean that better machine learning systems would result in companies being able to collect less data.) We should have forced audits of every consumer company.
Are the goals different, or should the original paper have done something more similar to your benchmark? Or something else?
In your conclusion, you report that PCA won on most dimensions. Did you investigate why you found that PCA outperforms MRL when the original paper found that their SVD baseline did not?
In the long run, in the AGI world, if everyone has implants, then everyone is roughly equal because computer-aided computation will be better than what any individual can do. Those without implants are screwed.
(I don't want an implant; nor do I want others to have implants.)
We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verification) our way out of noise overwhelming the signal.
Folks are willing to entirely abuse the public resource that is faithful, honest reviewing. (This is unsurprising; the abuse of the commons / public resources has been rising for a long time). There isn't a good solution other than something akin to draconian social scoring to limit access to the reviewing system.
There is ZERO cost to abusing the user over, and over, and over again by asking for permission to track them.
We shouldn't have the cookie banners at all because NO company should be able to do anything with tracking data. Just ban the use of user data by companies and most of SillyCon Valley's garbage behaviors are fixed.
Similarly, I should never get "terms of service updates" from digital companies because there should be no changes that they can make. You can provide the obvious service that you're providing; you can't aggregate my data for any purpose other than directly serving me; you can't aggregate my data with that of other users; if you retain my data for any other purpose, the government should take percentages of your revenue. I shouldn't have to wade through the BS that the mercenary corporate lawyers cook up to extract value from me.