trention

It would have gotten rid of every single one of those if the only method for their production required a tech company to invest a 8-digit sum in R&D and said tech company was threatened with litigation.

A french court banning it will probably be a (short) precursor to an EU-wide ban which is effectively a worldwide ban. EU courts will be fining companies heavily if they don't comply which effectively means big tech no longer invests a penny in models. I use 'French court' here mostly because I believe it most likely to be firstly litigated there.

These models are literally one French court decision away from being banned and investment in them being completely halted. So I wouldn't worry too much about them specifically.

You will find plenty of comments in this very thread that are the most abject type of !Luddism.

Ah, that deus ex AI that pops in every hackernews thread and not in reality.

That's either under some pretty narrow definition of "anything" or some pretty broad definition of "text".

You can start proving your point by representing the smell of incense as "text" and see how far that takes you.

No.

Way to skip past the last two-thirds of the sentence. Do you have anything meaningful to say or just wasting my time?

Using this as an example of "tradition being wrong" in the context of the linked article is literally peak autism on top of the fact that our "common sense" understanding of physical processes being wrong (is it even wrong at the level of abstraction we work on?) says nothing about our understanding of social phenomena.

Generally you should assume that tradition/status quo is always right until proven otherwise (=a logically compelling argument against, backed empirically).

GPT3 works only on text, both input and output. A system thus constrained, solely by virtue of that fact, is by definition not an AGI.

Because it agreed with their priors.

There are only 2 reasons to put this exact wording in your press release:

a) you are extremely stupid

b) you are super woke and are using this as a signalling opportunity

Extremely stupid people sometimes run billion-dollar companies but it's the exception.

Race-based firings are illegal and every company hires attorneys to cook the process so that it can pass legal muster.

That's the value of fake "diversity" (excluding the only diversity that matters, diversity of opinion - which is effectively forbidden by every large corporation in the states on any topic that is even remotely sensitive).

The affirmative answer to that ask was implicit in the first employment contract you signed. So, unless you'd claim that horses can give implicit consent by accepting grain from a human, the equivalency fails.

So, not reasonable at all?

>by 2022

Make that 2020. And in 2012 I was personally told by a startuper in the field that I would be able to buy L5 in 2017.

I mean I can easily dig out data about their funding that will not put them even inside the top 20% of the companies in the valley but at this point, given that you lack the competence to distinguish between founders' achievements prior to founding a company and the companies in question being "some of the most well-resourced companies", it's "why bother" with typical AI bros, incompetent at anything they touch.

>evidence of concrete applications that are in progress at some of the most well-resourced companies in Silicon Valley

Neither of the 2 companies you posted marketing materials about is among "some of the most well-resourced companies in Silicon Valley".

It's behind the horizon. You people should learn by the history of the whole field that progress is always slower than the marketing hype, usually by an enormous gap.

I'd like to comment specifically on the conception of betting on AI 'achievements' (I think Marcus' bet is underspecified and kind of vague in all 5 of its points).

People shouldn't be betting on benchmarks because benchmarks can be and usually are gamed (see Goodhart's law). Also, most people couldn't give less f*ck if an AI can write an award-worthy poem (I personally don't care about any form of AI "art", any sort of text an AI can produce or really any meaningless "feat" it (as in the general category) becomes capable of). The only worthy bets are ones that discuss economic impact. How many people will be structurally unemployed because of AI by year X? Will it lower or increase the GDP growth rate and by how much? Will it shift the balance between labor and capital and how? Etc.

So more meaningful bets and less benchmark bullshit that doesn't matter, please.

Is any of those links supposed to show something impressive? If that was the intent, you failed.

I'm saying his writings about marijuana are cranckish, as can be confirmed by anyone with any expertise in the field.

>He is the first journalist to take twitter to court and get unbanned

The fact that he was a "journalist" had nothing to do either with the reason for banning him or why he was restored (he was restored solely because a twitter employee behaved like a moron).

Calling alex berenson a journalist is a travesty. The fact that he is a crank is obvious from all his writing about marijuana that precedes the pandemic.

Have you considered that a lot of people in the medical field have always been latent antivaxxers and that was just the moment to out themselves? Spoiler alert, antivaxxers are always wrong.

And nobody knows enough about the flu vaccine currently yearly formulation in every year of the last 50+, but it was still recommended and administered to 40+% of US adults. Covid-related antivaxxism is just latent antivaxxers finally coming clean.

Between the antivaxxers in those threads and the "singularity in 3 years" ones in the AI threads, I think a significant downwards revision of the average IQ of hackernews commenters is in order.

I can't "try it" because I am not an injured party, me not being an artist that has published any image ever. That being said, the existing "relationship" between google and news publishers in the context of EU court decisions is already convincing enough about the direction this is going to go down (and google's usage of news didn't even have to cost a single person their job, unlike how this will).

>your personal neural network

More bullshit equating the human mind to an AI. Newsflash, boyo - humans are not NNs, there is no reason legal precedent should treat humans the same as NNs (and it won't).

You can pontificate all you want about what is contained in the model, the fact is a case related to infringement is going to hit an EU court soon enough and any sort of commercialization of those models will be banned. And good fucking riddance to the AI bros, the monkeys of engineering.