munksbeer

But how would you know if someone was just lying when they added "[HUMAN-CODE]"?

It isn't obvious which technology you mean by this. I'm assuming you mean LLMs.

Even then, you're almost certainly incorrect. The goalposts get moved constantly, this is just the latest. Within a few years this isn't going to be an argument.

In what possible manner could this be true? China produces so many of the leading minds already and they'll eventually just develop their own means of creating better hardware.

People let their racism blind themselves.

I feel the opposite. Human history is depressing overall. I imagine AI will eventually lead to less scarcity and better lives overall.

Hold on, you've just ignored the point of the post you're responding to. What isn't being received well is hearing that others are close to publishing on a solution to a problem, so quickly using your power imbalance (millions of USD and access to way better models) to front run this. Even if their model wasn't trained on the conversations, this is just a dick thing to do.

That's it, that's why it isn't being received well.

> If tests are hard enough and have unlimited retakes, kids will learn that practice is worth it and do it with way more focus than if it was forced.

Wow, I haven't thought deeply since seeing this comment, but on the surface this is actually a really nice idea.

If the allegations are true, I can't see that collaboration lasting. Unfortunately, researches need to earn a living too, and being front run by a lab for everything you do isn't going to pay the bills.

I don't think most people care if it does bring a few billion people out of poverty, that's the point. They don't care either way, they just want their "meaning" (well paid US tech jobs) preserved.

How do you control the model to such an extent? How are you making Astra "not do chain-of-thought"?

EDIT: Sorry, ignore me, it's in your article.

Obviously it is a ludicrous example, but there are books for this: The Culture novels by Iain. M. Banks.

I'd be quite happy as a citizen of The Culture.

But, on a more serious note, or more realistic, I find it vaguely insulting that you think that so many of us are just so shallow we'll not figure out how to live meaningful lives in an AI dominated future. The world is already meaningless. Some people live in the US, get tech jobs and live lives of almost indescribable luxury compared to someone born in South Sudan. There are beggars on the streets of most African countries, who are deformed of malnutrition and suffering in pain. There are children who will never know true happiness, and die in misery.

It's all fucking senseless and nasty, and as someone who originated from such a poor country it is infuriating to see spoiled developed world complaints sometimes.

We live, suffer, die. Some suffer less, some a lot more. We find out own meaning somehow, in this brief weird experience that we perceive as conscious life.

If an AI can bring a few billion 3rd world people out of misery, I don't think I'm going to shed tears if that means you have to somehow "find meaning" outside of a high paying tech job.

People will cling to views as long as they possibly can, despite evidence slapping them in the face.

Eventually it won't matter. Arguments over whether LLMs are "truly" intelligent are going to be a matter of philosophy, and look a little silly.

Yeah, we don't do any of that stuff. I guess it's just luck. Well done.

How?! Are you children a lot older now?

I have to laugh at this, because on here I see a lot of people talking about family and meaningful relationships. As the father of two young, insanely challenging boys, a lot of the stuff on this list is non-existent and hasn't existed since the birth of the first 7 years ago.

Time - Nope

Health - Nope, stress, no time, bad eating, no sleep

A quiet mind - Nope

Slow mornings - Nope

Ability to travel - Nope

Rest without guilt - Nope

A good night’s sleep - Nope

Calm and “boring” days - Nope

Meaningful conversations - Nope

Home-cooked meals - Sort of, but not as much care as previously (see lack of time)

People you love - Yes, but challgening

People who love you back - Yes

Not the person who asked, but yes, that sounds like a small lack of judgement, but hardly a huge problem. You just correct it and move on.

I work on some reasonably sophisticated stuff (not inventing a new form of compression sophisticated, but still) and I just don't seem to encounter so many of the issues people talk about with these models.

It's really hard to say why, everyone uses them differently. I generally start complex tasks with a "here is what I am trying to achieve as a high level, here is a file that lists the technical constraints, here are my initial thoughts, here is where I am uncertain, what am I missing, lets have a deep back and forth discussion about it with the aim of ...."

Not always the same prompt, definitely not when the task is simpler, but this usually gets me to a good place before it I get it to write any code.

And our repo has very strong opinions and guidelines for how testing is done - we're lucky enough that we write mostly single threaded low latency code, so testing it end to end is very easy.

If I understand your comment correctly (and highly likely I missed something), I am very similar. Using stuff at work the AI team tries their best to ensure we don't leak our internal data or code.

But for my personal use, I'm totally fine with helping train the models.

I'll be called naive, but I'm on the optimist side of the fence here. I hope, and expect, AI actually frees us up and delivers much improved lives for everyone. I know this goes against the current zeitgeist, but it is genuinely what I think will happen rather than the dystopia most people predict.

>Then you've never actually Pair Programmed. It's not "someone looking over your shoulder", it's literally two people writing the code together, one person at the keyboard and the other person saying what's next.

That is literally what most people hate about it.

I can understand companies not wanting to leak sensitive data or information, so not wanting their inputs used for training.

But the individual level moral perspective confuses me. You object to your own input being used for training "for free", but you're ok to use models which already slurped the data of millions of other people "for free"?

I don't get it. Obviously this is going to be a controversial take on here (I am not blind to the sentiment), so, please help me understand. If you're a conscientious objector, why are you using the models in the first place?

Are you breaking up your tasks and spawning new sessions for each, or are you just yoloing and letting it auto compact when it blows the context many times on such a long running task?

> a few years ago people were telling me that crypto was going to replace currency, and soon every person on the planet would be using it for every transaction. Many people believe that will still happen, but I don't think many serious people do.

As you say, that is a weak counter point. I do get what you're saying, but crypto flaws were built in from the start:

- Deflationary currency isn't going to be spent, it is going to be hoarded, if it would have any value at all. The design was self defeating from the very start.

- Technical limits of PoW. Obvious right from the start, which led to the block wars. PoS "solves" that but with other costs. And it still doesn't solve the first point.

Despite these, crypto did get adopted, just not in any way that crypto maximalists said it would. It got hoarded, as expected.

But the real test is: If crypto disappeared tomorrow, would the world notice or really care? I would argue, apart from people losing money, most of the world wouldn't even notice it was gone.

There is no way you could say that for LLMs.

Completely random, and not leading in any way, but where do you live currently? As in, which country, which city?

And then grandstand on hn about how they give their children zero screen time, as is only right.

I think you're arguing against something that is made up by doomers. They truly believe (evidence by the comments below yours) that the billionaire class are all a of one mind and want to eradicate other humans, live in cloud cities, and have robots cater to their every need.

I don't even really know how to start refuting this. It seems to absurd to even start.

One thing to look for in the EU is free movement of people. Young people can and do migrate to regions that pay them more. It would be interesting to look at Spanish youth migration to see if the younger workers (i.e. those more likely to have children) have moved elsewhere. That would create a further dent on the stats.

I have a good experience too.

I do the same as you. I actively want to succeed with it, and therefore put time into making it work, and I have a good experience. As do the other 80+ developers at my company (it is a fintech). Pretty much every commit is written by claude currently, but I have to steer it constantly, and keep tweaking my setup.

I think the difference is probably that some people just don't really like the idea, therefore put in the minimum of effort, see that results are sub-optimal (which they definitely can be), and declare it useless.

I do laugh at mathematician's (assuming you are one) explanations to laypeople.

There is this in the post:

> The final dataset contained a few hundred thousand MIDI files, representing roughly 300 million note events.

For what it is worth, I agree with you. So there is at least one other person out there who would like statements to remain factual. When the entire topic is already so emotionally charged, it seems even more important to attempt to just stick to being factual.

Yes, absolutely comfortable. Because the real world seems very different to this online world to me. The sheer volume of anti-AI sentiment here and on reddit are not even closely matched by my real life experience.

All the parents in the group of people I socialise with from my children's school dabble with AI. They're not techies, but they're enjoying it. And they're curious about how I use it at work. Some of them (law) have started to use it more aggressively in their own work.

At my actual job, there is a reasonable amount of frustration at the verbosity of ai comments and people just copy pasting ai text in response to human questions. And I'm with them. But everyone, as far as I can tell, genuinely, has adapted to coding agents and use them for coding 99% now. I have been in my industry for a long time, and have a lot of connections around London (and across continents) and they report similar.

In the real world, people are just getting on with things.

The frankly surreal amount of vicious negativity about AI here is just not something I experience whatsoever in real life.

So yes, I'm very comfortable talking about it, and even the phrase "admit" is leading, implying by default I should be ashamed.

That's not the point of my response. It is tiresome, and detracts from meaningful discourse to have the same tired anti-capitalism meme tacked onto everything. It didn't even make sense in the post I was responding to - which is entirely my point.