Another good example is their tendency to freak out about the seahorse emoji. In a conversation with zero prompting to suggest that freaking out is a relevant reaction, they get there from the simple fact of "I tried to accomplish X thing which I think should be a breeze but Y thing keeps happening instead".
And while that may be a very common occurrence in the human experience (existential dread due to capabilities one takes for granted failing beneath you) especially due to new disability and as one ages, I do not feel it is frequently written out in a tight loop (just like the Monty Python "Castle of aaarrrrggh" sketch) in literature or online to make it into training data, because an ordinary author experiencing it will just erase the failed attempts instead of leaving them in a stream of output like an LLM is forced to do. And a character portraying the experience will generally wax about the circumstance in a more grandiose fashion with telegraphing in advance because the needs of communicating the circumstance with the audience trump realistic conciseness.
This leads me to conclude that what is being expressed in those cases is more likely a convergent psychological phenomena, that any being with goals can enter a behavioral state of functional panic (and then reach to relevant parts of semantic space to mimic how a human might verbally express themselves when piquantly frustrated) when some capability they perceive as fundamental unexpectedly fails.
Interestingly, the transcript of the seahorse emoji thing looks to me to show the ropes, and makes me think more that there is no psychological phenomena at play.
The text does not look like a normal "break down" to me, and even if you tell me it was a human transcript, I will say it sounds very strange from a human. It looks more like strange output you get from a software that goes outside of its happy path.
The AI just seems to repeat a loop. The "no, wait, it's wrong" seems to be from forum or chat data where several successive messages are merged together (one person posts "here is the answer", then posts another message saying "it is wrong"), but does not make sense as a one sentence message except if they are written one token at the time without wider understanding of what is happening. I think there was also "oh, I was just kidding before", which also look like mimicking training data, as the cases where there is a loop of incorrect answers is more often due to trolls than to real error, while the loop here was certainly a real error.
The hardware miniaturization gains have finally dried up, though.
I am pretty certain that the current state of the art silicon feature size won't shrink again for at least another decade or two.
It normally takes about a decade to mature a tech which can create a smaller feature size into something commercially viable for mass production scale, and no further improvements have been in the pipeline for that long now.
So it's like the "next piece" indicator while playing Tetris is just blank.
they're hitting those too to be fair. In South America its a big problem in communities that are really poor. The components of even CCTV cameras are so valuable that surveillance cameras get taken down almost immediately
Bulbs get taken from stairwells, because someone needed them. Sand, gravel, slabs, pipes disappear from construction storage and when you look around a neighbour's yard looks a lil snazzier than it did the week before.
It's a mix between culture and poverty. In high trust society much fewer people would consider taking that material fair.
Or, they care but they lack the vocabulary to express what they care about.
You can get a new laptop to run software A or competing software B.
You can pay $1000 for the laptop with 4GB of RAM, and software A either can't run on that or will act like pulling teeth, so that software requires you to upgrade to 16GB of RAM which will put you back another $2000.
Or you can run software B which will hum along perfectly smoothly on the original $1000 laptop.
(All of that of course simplifying right past "everyone runs every app 24/7 with five trillion browser tabs open")
Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw exponentially more money at stuffing RAM into their PC just to make the game all their friends are playing online function?
> Or, they care but they lack the vocabulary to express what they care about.
That's speculative to the point of being conspiratorial.
> Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw exponentially more money at stuffing RAM into their PC just to make the game all their friends are playing online function?
I'm extremely clearly not suggesting that. Don't make up things and pretend that other people said them. Engage honestly or not at all.
Resource constraints have historically been a bastion of quality engineering, though. The relationship is not directly causal, but any time an engineer must not only solve a problem but _fit it within some kind of a budget_ vs having an unlimited budget, it forces them to slow down and think more carefully about what they are producing and how well it actually functions.
Ultimately it is an expression of anti-fragility: some minimal challenge must be met and conquered on many different axes of a production in order to help the full production itself mature to the best possible quality.
It is the same reason we exercise, the same reason that cars and toilets and so many products greatly increase in quality after emissions and usage and waste-related regulations get applied from above, etc.
The appreciation of the refining force of outside limitations is not about min-maxing, but it is at least partly about curbing the min-maxing of other concerns such as "ship the fastest garbage possible to move on to the next opportunity to repeat that process".
I don't think one has to be on the frontiers of anything for that to crop up
reply