I don't know that I got anything out of this other than that it took a long time. I think there is an interesting article to be written on this. Like, what were the concrete requirements? Why were those the requirements? Maybe show how one letter evolved over time as the project went on, and explain why.
But instead the article is effectively the Gravitational Pull of Pepsi[0].
Hmm. I would have appreciated more depth and details, but it did cover requirements to look good and maintain identity across print, screen, merchandise, etc.
Which makes sense but that alone sent me spinning. Not easy.
But how many brands are really, honestly, displayed at that variety of sizes, in that variety of media, across language barriers and purposes. Some, sure. Not many.
That is not actually a typical playbook. Normal businesses do not want to be regulated, and will fight it tooth and nail. So regulation happens when bad things happen, the public wants change, and the businesses can't fight it or set favorable terms. (At most they can minimize the badness of the terms). Regulatory capture happens much later, and slowly. It's not where you start at.
> That is not actually a typical playbook. Normal businesses do not want to be regulated, and will fight it tooth and nail.
Sure. If you exclude, for example, the entire automotive industry, the entire telecom industry, the entire airline industry, the entire energy industry, and the entire healthcare industry from the category of "normal businesses" then you can perhaps make an argument that most "normal businesses" do not want to be regulated.
> Regulatory capture happens much later, and slowly.
Regulatory capture often happens quite early, especially when new technologies emerge, and companies that are successful early on aim to consolidate their hold on the market. This happened with the telephone industry around the turn of the 20th century, the broadcasting industry starting in the 1920s, etc. Regulation always tends toward market consolidation, so the people who are aiming for market consolidation tend to advocate for it. And sometimes the most effective advocacy is pretending to oppose it.
FT clearly didn't do their due diligence, since the auxiliary information provided with the $70B leak (about e.g. growth rates and enterprise sales) made it clear that the number could not possibly be correct.
It just wasn't clear exactly what the error was (e.g. was a projection of a $70B ARR by end of year being misinterpreted as $70B ARR now -- that would have been stupid, but less stupid than the "investors added a fudge factor to the numbers" story that they're now going with).
> The chips in the proposed deal were bought or leased by Amazon. They are installed in more than a dozen US data centres across five states, including Nevada and Virginia, the report said.
The "warehouses full of GPUs" thing might be the most absurd of the AI economy conspiracy theories.
Actually no, the hyperscalers have been saying this themselves. They have bought chips they can’t power on and use because of issues getting enough power and building out data centers. How much of NVidia’s revenue is actually just selling chips that go sit on a shelf somewhere is a closely guarded secret at this point.
If that were the case, the hyperscalers would be ramping down capex, not increasing it.
The not-in-service numbers on the financials are just the normal lag, and have been stable in proportion to capex for years, to well before the start of the boom.
These were evaluations or training runs dealing with the ability to do web searches. The entire reason the bots were targeting this site is that it had some of the data they'd been tasked with finding. Access to the internet is not really optional for that, and providing internet access doesn't demonstrate neglicence.
> This is why it smells like marketing
It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing. If something is marketing, you don't engage in repeated coverups of the true extent. If something is good news, you don't release it on a Friday evening (in this case) or wait for 3rd parties to find and publicize the evidence (the past cases).
No. They tasked them with answering questions by retrieving data from public sources. This obviously requires internet access. So the incredulity about "how could they fail to block internet access" is just inane. That was the task.
They did not task the agents with hacking into systems. Not monitoring for that was a mistake, but maybe a forgivable one the first time around. The subsequent coverups are inexcusable.
Usually also, and more so nowadays, a few of the public sources of data left, even after the recent USGov intention of defund and close as much of them as possible, im guessing would be precisely, government websites!
>Access to the internet is not really optional for that
Would a read only copy of the web be sufficient for this though? Google keeps a read only copy of the web in their data centers which they use to extract information from websites.
> It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing.
Oh, absolutely it is. Arms manufacturers always go on about the efficiency of the weapons they create and make no mistake: OpenAI is first and foremost a weapons manufacturer, the rest is just a fig leaf. The fact that you aren't the audience for purchases like that makes no difference. "Look at this capability, and that's when we're not even trying." is pretty good marketing in some circles.
Yes, famously tobacco companies wanted to advertise their products as addictive and deadly. That's why they funded and heavily publicized research to that effect.
Climate change is just a scam by the fossil fuel industry to hype up their market cap. Look at the power of co2, and the damage it can do without even trying.
Medicines being pulled during trials or after public availability for side effects are just Big Pharma making their products more desirable via scarcity.
Boeing did really well out of the 737 max. Airlines were just lining up to buy an airplane that could give the passengers an experience they would remember for the rest of their life. That's why they absolutely made clear that it was their product that was dangerous, rather than blaming operator error.
This comment makes zero sense. None of these are weapons manufacturers. AI is roughly on par with the atomic bomb and first use over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was definitely to send a message.
Your analogy make zero sense. Atom bomb manufacturers do not market their products.
Big businesses really do not like to talk about their products being harmful or dangerous, and there is ample evidence to that. Danger only sells in artisanal quantities to niche audiences.
Atom bomb manufacturers/owners want the world to know they have them so as not to fuck with them. To quote one of my favorite movies: "Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
Naive take. The more they signal to both the general populace and their investors that their agents are sentient and "capable of extraordinary things" the more they can hype their IPO because it means they're "close to AGI". (They're not, which is why they need the hype.)
The impact from a model not being included in the training set is increased false negatives for text generated by that model, not increased false positives for text written by humans.
The latter are not doomers at all, that's just a misuse of the term.
A year ago I would have described that group as AI skeptics or AI deniers depending on how charitable I felt on any given sany. At this point AI truthers seems more appropriate.
There was a recent video doing rounds in twitter. An eclectic group of doomers and truthers who found an unusual common ground on hating on AI.
Nate Soares (doomer high priest who has called for pause before LLMs were a thing) was explaining why AI should be stopped due to x-risks. Ed zitron (truther extraordinaire) asks him what has he done to stop it which is funny when Nate spent big part of his life on this mission.
It was strange watching two people who have completely different ideas on AI speaking on a common ground
so don't use it at max? The benchmarks suggest that high/xhigh are more than sufficient to be ahead and a whole magnitude below max with regards to token usage. I'd treat that as an outlier and not how verbose the model is in general (QED I know)
This is like a web page asking for your email password to check password strength, promising that it won't leave your browser. Maybe it doesn't right now, but who knows about tomorrow.
But instead the article is effectively the Gravitational Pull of Pepsi[0].
[0] https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
reply