>Why would I remember that?
Why wouldn't you lol
1,177 karma · joined April 6, 2016
Why wouldn't you lol
what the fuck
Except you can be legally blind, have glasses, and still have nearly perfect vision. You can be legally deaf, but listen fairly well with correctives etc. all of these are reasonable accommodations too.
>what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time?
There's 0(generally -in most cases) justification for workers not being able to sit on their stations in amazon warehouses except for "we don't want you to," so nothing happens.
>a blind person applying to be a QA?
Believe it or not, blind QA people who work in accessibility exist.
>Of course, this sucks for the disabled
You question the obvious benefits -- the fact that business can't just fire/not hire you for say, a work related injury, or getting injured elsewhere, or being disabled in general, and then you provide absolutely 0 recourse except "Sucks for you bro."
>a disability will impact your ability perform general tasks (and require additional accommodation).
The entire point is _REASONABLE_ accommodation. With reasonable accommodation, most people who suffer from disabilities can do their jobs just fine. Your glasses are _reasonable accommodation_ against you not having 20/20 vision, so is a hearing aid.
Does me having a ?/10 vision corrected to 20/20 (just an example) with glasses affect my performance as far as me being a (software engineer, accountant, construction worker, truck driver, scientist, biologist, doctor, pharmacist, teacher etc.) goes? What about an accountant who uses hearing aid to listen? What about a wheelchair bound software engineer who doesn't really have to move to do their job?
Unless your alternative is just that disabled people should be out on the street starving, worker protections in general are a good thing.
It's also exceptional at making IEPs/Learning Plans for certain things I'd like to learn for the week etc which I am already somewhat familiar with. I use it as a rough guide and it has worked well so far.
Solving human nature is indeed, hard.
Because "Flood warning on roads" is very different than "hey there is a possible tornado/aftershocks/*" and I'd like the 2nd one to take up the entire home-assistant dashboard.
I can either code it myself, or let the model figure it out after passing it the YAML file for the dashboard.
>Why is a complex system of smaller models reporting up to a slightly larger model necessary?
because as the other poster said, cost and speed. thousands of queries every day (potentially) at 30 cents per million tokens is very different than 15 dollars per million tokens.
Think of everything being connected to a "Home Computer" in those "Future House of 2020" videos that were out there in 70s or what not.
Another example (very rough) would be something like "Weather data gets to a small model via an API, model looks at it, updates the home dashboard, also sees if there's any alerts, if so, adds x or y to home dashboard appropriately as to what it thinks best."
We can probably achieve the latter example today. (without any significant 'coding' on anyone's part except the API owner)
or maybe, context is important and you should read that comment in the context I was speaking in :)
---
Speaking of, you also trust random machines daily. So that point is really silly.
Why would I trust a random human? If anything, I can be certain that a well trained machine will not call me slurs for being brown, or x sexual orientation, or break into my house.
To be fair, LGBTQ community isn't 'broken.' Some people are inherently gay, lesbian, etc.
Deafness _is_ an actual defect. The weird thing that we should not strive to fix human defects when they are truly defects is astounding.
Are you talking about honing rods? Because they 'sharpen' nothing.
There have been countless times where I was like "Oh I remember there was a book I was searching but not what the name is."
and I didn't know what the name was, when I was looking for it, or the terms that I used for it. THIS is when I expect it to be useful.
I'm fine with taking snapshots of my whole PC activity, as long as data is stored locally. I take plenty of screenshots myself. People act like they have never used a computer for productivity.
---
Again, if someone has physical access to my PC, I have better things to worry about.
I expect stuff like Recall to help me y'know...Recall.
There have been countless times where I was like "Oh I remember there was a book I was searching but not what the name is."
and I didn't know what the name was, when I was looking for it, or the terms that I used for it. THIS is when I expect it to be useful.
LLMs and "AI" features have made my life significantly easier over the last two years.
Given the fact that many, many people make their software MIT licensed (or rather, do whatever, I don't care license), I think most of us will be ok with that :)
Is that really a danger? I can shut off a machine or VMs.
Bullets kill people when fired by firearms. I fail to see how LLMs do.
> Due to our concerns about malicious applications of the technology, we are not releasing the trained model. As an experiment in responsible disclosure, we are instead releasing a much smaller model(opens in a new window) for researchers to experiment with, as well as a technical paper(opens in a new window).
If you note, that's pretty much verbatim to what I said. So no, people don't have defective memories, some people just selectively quote stuff :P
You should actually read the paper associated with it. It's largely a journey in "why would you think that" reading.
"Oh no we're not going to release GPT-2 because its so advanced that it's a threat to humankind" meanwhile it was dumb as rocks.
Scaremongering purely for the sake of it.
The only remotely possible "safety" part I would acknowledge is that it should be balanced against biases if used in systems like loans, grants, etc.