yeah well, both the doomers and the "pr stunt" folks are right
- openai wanted to prove, as a pr stunt, that they have a dangerous weapon - openai proved (as a pr stunt), that they do indeed have a dangerous weapon
739 karma · joined September 7, 2016
- openai wanted to prove, as a pr stunt, that they have a dangerous weapon - openai proved (as a pr stunt), that they do indeed have a dangerous weapon
You should definitely ride the elephant (or at least lead it there)!
Here is the logic:
If you walk there by yourself, you will arrive at the creek, but the dirty elephant will still be 300 feet back where you started. You can't wash the elephant if it isn't with you!
Plus, it is much easier to take the elephant to the water than it is to carry enough buckets of water 300 feet back to the elephant.
Would you like another riddle, or perhaps some actual tips on how to keep cool in the Arizona heat?
Otoh, afaik either it wasn't like this in the satoshi era or satoshi revealed the public key. In any case, satoshi's wallets are crackable by qc.
It's not that you need to be tought how to cheat, it's that you need to be tought how to avoid unintentionally cheating.
Well... spending a few weeks reproducing a shiny conference paper that simply doesn't work and is easily beaten by any classical baseline will do that to you in the first few months of your PhD imo. I've become so skeptic over the years that I assume almost all papers to be lies until proven otherwise.
"This surfaces the fundamental tension between good science and career progression buried deep at the heart of academia. Most researchers are to some extent “career researchers”, motivated by the power and prestige that rewards those who excel in the academic system, rather than idealistic pursuit of scientific truth."
For the first years of my PhD I simply refused to parttake in the subtle kinds of frauud listed in the second paragraph of the post. As a result, I barely had any publications worth mentioning. Mostly papers shared with others, where I couldn't stop the paper from happening by the time I realized that there is too little substance for me to be comfortable with it.
As a result, my publication history looks sad and my carreer looks nothing like I wished it would.
Now, a few years later, I've become much better at research and can now get my papers to the point where I'm comfortable submitting them with a straight face. I've also came to terms with overselling something that does have substance, just not as much as I wish it had.
Yeah, but you are, at least seemingly, missing the point: the scripts he was referring to in context weren't the legal disclosures but the sales tricks that were handed to them to use. He is pointing out that the 'elite' saleswoman wasn't better at strategy or sales tricks, but was effective because she made them feel good.
Contrast that with Phyics Nobel for advancing AI using physics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23841742/francesca-gino-d...
[1] "The “obvious” answer, if my above assertions are true, is that it must not actually represent a thermonuclear secondary. [...] It could be some kind of pre-approved “unclassified shape” which is used for diagnostics and model verification, for example."