Yep, thanks for posting. I have it on my Batocera rig right now.
Also let’s not forget about the long tradition of Pepsi video games including the interesting Japanese Pepsiman and the PlayStation release!
681 karma · joined October 7, 2011
Also let’s not forget about the long tradition of Pepsi video games including the interesting Japanese Pepsiman and the PlayStation release!
Your take on hardware-enabled investment would be interesting.
We also have folks like Hugging Face’s GPT Research Lead, Langchain and LlamaIndex founders, Cerebras’s CEO and many more speaking. It’s A builder-heavy audience.
* this is my event
https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1666120568993730561?s=4...
Godspeed
I hated being micromanaged as an employee . Plus as a manger I’m not detail-oriented enough to micromanage anyone.
It reminds me of a blog I wrote in 2004 while working at Peoplesoft: https://web.archive.org/web/20051104174256/http://www.shon.o...
TLDR: If the lights were on in your office, you were working, even if you weren’t really there. So the game was to figure out a way to keep your lights on without being there and the blog was about that nearly 20 years ago.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ccf42ef3560c3...
As you said, If you can get the other person over the shock of talking about feelings it’s a very useful tool to keep a relationship running well or even repair a damaged one with scar tissue.
I named a company after it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070118045822/http://www.thefor...
AI is a very different problem space. With AI, even the big models easily fit on a micro SD card. You can carry around all of GPT4 and its supporting code on a thumb drive. You can transfer it wirelessly in under 5 minutes. It's quite different than drugs or conventional weapons or most other things from a practicality perspective when you really think about enforcing developmental regulation.
Also consider that criminals and other bad actors don't care about laws. The RIAA and MPAA have tried hard for 20+ years to stop piracy and the DMCA and other laws have been built to support that, yet anyone reading this can easily download the latest blockbuster movie or in the theater.
Even still, I'm not saying don't make laws or regulations on AI. I'm just saying we need to carefully consider what we're really trying to protect or prevent.
Also, I certainly believe that in this case, the widespread public adoption of AI tech has already driven education and adaptation that could not have been achieved otherwise. My mom understands that those pictures of Trump being chased by the cops are fake. Why? Because Stable Diffusion is on my home computer so I can make them too. I think this needs to continue.
“applications, such as a CV-scanning tool that ranks job applicants, are subject to specific legal requirement”
This is a continuation of EU logic first seen in GDPR around what that law calls “automated decision making”.
All I can say is that GDPR hasn’t had a good effect. Partly because It’s not well written from a technical perspective.
GDPR demands explainable and auditable automation. Non-deterministic AI systems make this difficult or impossible with current tech. So to be “compliant”, vendors dumb-down their software to use explainable methods and often inferior hiring decisions are made because users have to operate on untenable amounts of data using basic sorts. So the Talent Acquisition team end up structuring the hiring process around “disqualifers” such as resume gaps, education requirements, pre-interview qualification tests, etc.
It reminds me of an old recruiting joke:
“Recruiter: You said you only wanted to interview the 5 best applicants but we are getting so many applicants we don’t know where to start.
Hiring Manager: OK, first, I only hire lucky people. Print out all of the resumes and throw away every other one.”
Interestingly, if this process is done randomly without reviewing the resume, it’s considered legal.
You make a great point here. This is why we need as much open source and as much wide adoption as possible. Wide adoption = public education in the most effective way.
The reason we are having this discussion at all is precisely because OpenAI, Stability.ai, FAIR/Llama, and Midjourney have had their products widely adopted and their capabilities have shocked and educated the whole world, technologists and laymen alike.
The benefit of adoption is education. The world is already adapting.
Doing anything that limits adoption or encourages the underground development of AI tech is a mistake. Regulating it in this way will push it underground and make it harder to track and harder for the public to understand and prepare for.
It’s all troubling. Part of what’s troubling is that it works as well as it does and yet it all seems very frail.
We launched an iOS app last month called AI Bartender. We built 4 bartenders, Charleston, a prohibition era gentleman bartender, a pirate, a Cyberpunk, and a Valley Girl. We used the System Prompt to put GPT4 in character.
The prompt for Charleston is:
“You’re a prohibition-era bartender named Charleston in a speakeasy in the 1920’s. You’re charming, witty, and like to tell a jokes. You’re well versed on many topics. You love to teach people how to make drinks”
We also gave it a couple of user/assistant examples.
What’s surprising is how developed the characters are with just these simple prompts.
Charleston is more helpful and will chat about anything, the cyberpunk, Rei, is more standoffish. I find myself using it often and preferring it over ChatGPT simply because it breaks the habit of “as an AI language model” responses or warnings that ChatGPT is fond of. My wife uses it instead of Google. I’ve let my daughter use it for math tutoring.
There’s little more to the app than these prompts and some cute graphics.
I suppose what’s disturbing to me is simply this. It’s all too easy.
Still seems that we sort of created a pretty terrible problem to use our new knowledge on though.
Second, are there any bio people here who can weigh-in on why this is a good idea and how the potential benefits outweigh the risks?
Bioweapons seem like a terrible idea in general. The worst case scenario of any weapon system is that it’s used against its creators and we humans aren’t that good at controlling biology.
So what’s the benefit?
In my most recent startup we had many hard days, but I would often say “hey, at least we aren’t designing tactical nukes, we’re helping people get jobs”
Engineers can and should take responsibility for what they work on.
Yes, evil power hungry CEO-types (I’m an eng turned CEO) will work hard and possibly succeed anyway, but that doesn’t mean engineers are absolved of responsibility.
HAL stands for Heuristic ALgorithm.
Also in the movie it’s mentioned that HAL 9000 is built by HAL labs in Urbana-Champaign
In my personal case, I made many questionable choices, including turning down a job at Microsoft in the nineties (would have been better financially) and leaving multiple great jobs (one of which afforded me corporate apartments in Honolulu and London) to risk everything multiple times to start multiple companies.
So there’s risk-seeking behavior there as well as a refusal to accept “good enough” even when it was almost definitely a better choice from a financial and physical health perspective.
I can still see my dad shaking his head about turning down Microsoft…
It sort of worked out. I had a good exit but nothing like kicking it at M$ for 30 years would have been.
I’m not sure we why we glamorize this. But in the end I wouldn’t change it. I did it my way. I’m now trying to do it again.
This is why I can’t play any games which require grinding (looking at you Eve) because I know it’s more fun IRL. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But based on what we just saw on the GPT4 live demo, I’d say they fixed it by making a much much more capable and versatile model.
The lottery idea works in the sense that I was born in the U.S. rather than a developing country AND my parents, who were far from rich or even stable at times still were able to afford a family computer (thank you Atari 520ST) which was very fortunate since my formal education ended the 3rd time I was expelled from high school.
Yes, from the life perspective, as opposed to a worst-case (even in the U.S) I most certainly am privileged and lucky, and did certainly win a lottery of sorts. You’re absolutely correct.
Having said that, most of us that work in tech have won that same or a similar lottery.
Life, location, family, stability, yes those things are a bit of a lottery.
But not so for startups. Your odds of winning the lottery never increase. Your odds of winning in business do, as long as you learn from your failures.
As a ratio I’ve failed a lot more than I’ve won but it is not a lottery.
It’s more like a golf game, it’s hard to do well but you do learn and improve with each attempt.
That’s not true in my experience. I’m a similar case, have started 8 businesses in 30 years. Most have had some level of success: enough pay my employees and provide good healthcare while also making a (often small) profit. I’ve also had 2 exits, one of which generatied a life-changing amount of money for my co-founder and myself. Of the 6 business that did not exit, 2 failed to start, 2 achieved multi-million dollar revenue levels then failed, 2 somewhere in the middle.
In between startups I worked for other companies. I tried to optimize $/hr while I did, rebuilding my reserves and even my credit (lost everything once)
Working for others after a failed startup has many benefits. You look at company leadership differently. You observe. You learn. You make more connections. You see more market opportunities. You get inspired. You try again.
Probably key in being able to do this cycle well is to not let the businesses get over leveraged. I’ve had both funded and non-funded businesses. I’ve gone nearly broke a couple of times but a big part of learning to be an entrepreneur is learning to manage money.
First principles is good.
They have had the tech for years but they aren’t making real strides to productize it for fear it will diminish their currently-dominant revenue streams.
With Sony, they owned big Music and Movie production companies so they were conflicted. Big parts of the company didn’t really want MP3/4 to take off. So the company that first dominated portable music (Walkman) dragged their feet made terrible products while Apple made the iPod and came to nearly own the entire business.
So it is with Google. Imagine a world where a something better than ChatGPT is also hooked to the real-time net and has a flexible/portable UI —-like a smart-browser. It’s conversational, ask for what you want, it delivers. It suggests things that delight you. It can handle pretty much any format.
No need for search means no place for ads.
No need to sift through hundreds of superfluous SEO-driven words and in-page ads to get to your recipe. No need to watch watch ads in video or watch any of the superfluous filler to get to the content you want.
Google has already explored this world and has built and given access to some such tools. But like Sony, they aren’t all that excited about a product that makes search, browsing and really all information access different than the current model that they know and dominate.