shwaj

He may very well have been the first to coin that term!

Please reread. I am not making the claim that OpenAI is hypocritical.

I am making the claim that the article headline is clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical for firing workers for using AI to do their job, which is a mischaracterization because the whole job is to give human input.

Really? It’s clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical: “look they’re marketing AI as valuable, and they won’t even let their own people use it”. When in fact the job description is to not use AI.

So does Gödel. Maybe it was a joke? Unclear.

The article didn’t make it clear: the breakthrough is the discovery of a new third brain, beyond the two previously known.

Why is it ironic? Sounds like an honest question from someone who doesn’t know.

I think you’re conflating the direction of definition with the direction of evaluation.

Compare the similarity of:

  AI(n) = improve(AI(n-1))

With:

  Fib(n) = Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2)

The latter is a classic example of recursion. So why isn’t the former?

Edit: formatting

“Recursive” is a reasonable term because the generation N AIs will train the Generation N+1 AIs. The term “iterative” doesn’t reflect this nuance as well IMO.

The risks of open models are real.

However, I’d feel better about ceding control of AI to the government if they didn’t seem so intent on building an apparatus for surveillance/control.

Your “furry fanfic” is a somewhat pathetic scarecrow; this is a complicated topic.

Neuromancer came out in 1984, over 40 years ago, so that covers the broad concept. Or Neo in The Matrix: “Programs hacking programs… why?”

For non-fiction you could look at Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014).

More recently, see Cade Metz’s NYT profile of Geoffrey Hinton, “The Godfather of A.I. Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead” (May 1, 2023).

I was under the impression that Go also uses Elo, then I did a bit of cursory research and discovers that it varies.

Two major federations are American Go Association (AGA) and European Go Federation (EGF). EGF uses an Elo-inspired update rule since 2021. AGA uses a quite-different Bayesian system without pairwise update; they provide a paper and a C++ reference impl.

Asian countries don't bother with such numeric ratings. Instead, rankings are titles which are won through tournament promotion structures (sounds similar to Sumo to me).

Interesting, because I always thought that it was more "apples to apples", and that the higher upper limits of Go rankings was somehow indicative of the higher "dynamic range" of the game compared to chess. For example, if Elo were applied to basketball, what would the Elo of Lebron James be compared to a playground hooper (leaving aside that 1-on-1 isn't the best part of Lebron's game)... would it be higher or lower than Magnus Carlsen in chess? I don't have an intuition.

It was a joke referencing the typo in the message they responded to.

I was housemates with a couple with a kid. The kid learned Scratch first, and made some surprisingly sophisticated apps in that semester (or two).

By now he’s moved on to textual languages (not yet old enough for a career), but Scratch was engaging and gave him a good start.

I don't know about the article about Apple News scams, but how is an article about Waymo publishing a model for self driving cars not about AI?

It's not plagarism, Ciechanowski didn't invent this presentation form. His presentations are examples of "active essays", a term coined by Alan Kay no later than 2006.

(I don't know whether Alan invented the concept itself, I'm not aware of him claiming that)

See: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5350160

Your tone implies that the same people who freak out about reasonable gov intervention, are also (hypocritically) okay with the shenanigans being discussed.

Who are these straw men you refer to?

You could be more charitable. They did say “or” which you omitted in your quote, and also “who knows”. There are possibilities too. In my view, the primary contribution of that comment was to clarify the time frame.

I have to assume that was sarcasm.

So highlight both then.

It would still be the best model per dollar if the score was 2% lower instead of 0.1% lower. Would it be ok to still give it the highlight color then?

How big of a lie is too big? Especially when no lie needed to be told at all: many including myself would have noticed the tiny 0.1% deficit and been suitably impressed by the Opus 5 result.

I’ll admit this is a small deception by today’s standards. I’m one of those who believes in truth for truth’s sake.

Edit: typo

I didn’t grow up with that hobby. The point stands anyway.

Cracking a binary circumvents authorization to provide full access to functionality the program already has. That’s very different from modifying the program to add new features.

I like how they highlighted Opus 5 as the best for “Agentic Coding” even though the number is slightly lower than Fable. Close enough for marketing, I guess!

Equating an open weight model to a closed source binary is ludicrous. An open weight model can be fine tuned, for example. How easy is it to modify a closed source binary for your purposes?

They avoid the full basilisk treatment.

Since we’re hair splitting: that’s not what bike shedding means. :-D

“Striped office floors. Flickering lights. Walls covered in repetitive geometric patterns.”

Not sentences. AI slop.

Inference providers, sure, but wouldn't we expect customers to win also?

Benn Jordan, you mean. Good video.

> ML researcher or engineer

The charitable reading is that they meant “ML researcher or ML engineer” with the latter meaning, I guess, an engineer who works on developing LLMs not just using them.

I don’t think society is a monolith. Many of those who support your proverbial alimony are also against CEOs acting with impunity.