My gut says the economics, e.g hardware/data center/resource constraints, are going make the economics of small specialized models more attractive. Without any evidence whatsoever, I also think that the big frontier companies will have to de-emphasize chatbots as huge models in favor of chatbots as huge products with a much much more granular mixture of experts approach, but with much smaller models. I’ve been saying for a while now that AI products have to hit the gas on prioritizing product design to reliably solve real people’s problems in predictable-enough ways, because the current approach is only really appealing to enthusiasts, developers, or optimistic managers, and with the kind of money they’re throwing around, that’s not going to work.

My gut is that you could distill 98% of what's currently being done inside LLMs into a classical knowledge base/inference engine and only use the language models for natural language processing and an oracle for brainstorming and cut most of the computational cost and hallucinations out.

I certainly wouldn’t complain about that setup if it worked.

I have no idea if modern-day SV’s “tests pass… idfk, it’s a web app… LGTM I guess” coding ethos was the cause of this particular bug. However, it’s a great, relatively benign demonstration of why it has absolutely zero fucking place controlling extremely dangerous hardware shooting a human around a race track surrounded by people.

Except here, where it's kind of the point of the sport in the first place?

What, software bugs? The point of the sport is driving, not mitigating sloppy bullshit shoved into your car.

If your experience was actually worse than my astonishingly janky mobile experience, that would be pathetic. Pretty bad. It looked cool for a second, and then when I tried to zoom in to where I live, I was instantly too irritated to bother.

Yes, and I insisted quite a bit because I was curious about a coast. I wonder if this is some kind of UI Neuralese, maybe the simulated scroll/touch attempts made sense to only it.

I’d guess it was a) an amalgam of a few good ideas that are pretty stupid together, or b) some hand-rolled techniques that got clobbered by a library imported for something else.

a) scale matters, b) we don’t think up justifications for actions that don’t violate our principles— we do it to absolve ourselves from doing it anyway.

I hadn’t considered the language similarities between some sects of AI boosters, particularly in the AI art realm, and incels. The persecution complex, pseudo social justice jargon, the extreme tribalism, and other greatest hits seemed very familiar, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

In my experience, that list describes the AI haters far more than the boosters.

Everybody thinks that the people they disagree with are worse. And frankly, I’d eat my hat if this didn’t stem from a deliberately divisive social media campaign sprung by image generator services. The “Defending AI Art” subreddit was created 4 days before the “Artist Hate” subreddit when midjourney was still in public alpha. And as someone that graduated art school, as a career changer, into an industry whose entry-level workforce was immediately screwed by models that trained on my student portfolio without permission, credit, or compensation, I consider the people mangling intersectional privilege jargon to paint themselves as an oppressed minority because they can’t enter midjourney images into photography contests to be completely fucking ridiculous.

Everything after your first sentence is an ironic example of your first sentence :)

Not really, but nice low-effort false equivalence dodge.

I have no idea what you think I’m dodging. I could care less about AI art. I’ve never created it, I don’t view it (on purpose), I know nothing about it. My relationship to non-AI art is much the same, actually.

So if you have some question you’d like me to answer, just state it plainly.

Sorry, you’re right. I meant pointless, glib, false-equivalence clapback.

I didn’t think your off-topic conspiratorial screed about AI art deserved a more thoughtful response tbh.

Well you certainly didn’t overshoot.

I don’t think many people are worried that there won’t be problems to solve. Many people are worried that people will be devalued in extremely consequential ways as they have been in the past. A lot of human misery lurks in the eddies caused by innovation and so many people in the software business have been so comparatively coddled compared to the rest of the workforce that they can’t viscerally understand the implications of that. The hubris inherent to the tech world prompts many to reject that fact out-of-hand. There will be some people that travel the happy path through this change, but I think it’s a fraction of the number of people that actually will, and I think technologists will be disproportionately marginalized.

Things like this are a Rorschach test for anybody with a significant ideological bent.

Challenge: “A stopped clock can’t be reliably used to tell the time.”

Group A: “A stopped clock is incapable of displaying the correct time and anybody that says they’ve seen one do so is a stupid lying liar! I saw a pre-release paper that proved it!”

Group B: “I looked at my stopped clock 5 times yesterday, 12 hours apart confirmed with the atomic clock, and it was within 2 seconds of the correct time every time except once. The people that can’t use stopped clocks to view the correct time are dumb dumbs that are looking at them wrong.”

Pouring 100% of your tech optimism, and probably portfolio, into a product that some say is about to get Wile E Coyote flattened by market dynamics would probably inspire serious market skepticism.

I don’t buy them being surprised. This perfectly plays into their pattern of using fear to make their models seem more powerful than they are. They obviously had the technical expertise… there isn’t a damn thing a bunch of randos on some HN thread knew about that model that they didn’t. It gave them an excuse to delay their IPO when their books seem like they’re going to be pretty shit compared to Anthropic. It helps them reposition themselves as being more safety-forward which the market is clearly more interested in. All that is to say they had motive out the ass, easily had the knowledge and capability to avoid the problem, knew better than anybody else what the models were capable of, set up the environment, gave it the prompt, and then did not even monitor the output.

Negligence is carelessness. Recklessness, is disregard for a known, substantial risk.

I absolutely believe this was recklessness.

You can be unsympathetic to the corporation’s bottom line while being sympathetic to the human beings that had their work trivialized by some cocky blog post.

You can also just acknowledge that we don't know what they did (and that is because they chose not to tell us). Apparently, until not so long ago Jev would spell out its identity as Q-w-e-n if asked, so we might as well assume that what they did is at least similar to what this blog poster did (who chose to tell us).

As a commercial artist seeing some pretty serious market disruption based on models that used my art and writing to create, without permission, credit, or compensation, I’d have a hard time not punching anyone in the AI business complaining about other people using their work uncredited. Then I’d probably have a real hard time not doing it a few more times. I’m confident I’d settle for just dressing them the fuck down, but it would take some real restraint.

I didn't know that - I revoke my OP if true!

My source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49783999#49785351 I don't have an account so couldn't check, a friend couldn't replicate with a one-letter attempt (first letter A 50%) - performed by his agent, though, so not sure what he did exactly.