You can gauge the quality of the article by seeing Emily Bender quoted, who will insist on stochastic parrots when AI does billions of dollars of economically useful work.
Isn't it surprising that there were enough pre-1930 tokens to train an intelligent model? I was always under the impression that many tokens are also necessary to force the model to grok things and compress its learning into a somewhat intelligent model of the world, so to say. But perhaps I'm underestimating how much digitized literature exists from then.
one of my greatest hopes for the advancement of LLM technology is a great reduction for the amount of data to train on. imagine a SOTA model trained exclusively on good prose, ah.
Civilization needs any new consumers of energy to pay for the new capacity they require, that's not the case here so let's forget about civilization and its requirements.
> energy, not a problem per se. Just generate more, preferably from sustainable sources.
Finally someone with unlimited energy supply, how much of that "no problem" can you provide? Use you preferred sources or others, I'll make no fuss about it, in continuous Gigawatts, please.
Perhaps the adversity of the contracts cancels out with their sudden success and increase in valuation and it ends up a wash compared to the counterfactual scenario where they would have speculated on high growth early on.
This seems to be a very peculiar and adversarial interpretation of anti-social. I am relatively anti-social and consider this a bit of a character flaw, but would generally say that I do not assume the worst in others and am relatively introspective. It just doesn't come naturally to me, but that does not mean that I think less of others.
Psychopaths are calculated, charming, and organized, often blending seamlessly into society. Whereas sociopaths tend to be erratic, impulsive, and prone to outbursts and aggressive and reckless behavior.
Psychopaths, I would say, are "quite good" at attracting people, by knowing exactly what to say. Sociopaths may sometimes attract people unintentionally, just by virtue of their impulsive personalities sometimes causing them to be "fun" to be around.
In both cases though, people who know them well tend to be repelled by their lack of regard for the needs and feelings of others.
People generally complain about the interview process being bloated while also not giving a good signal - is it then not better to hire people for a while, see if they perform and then letting them go again? Though perhaps in Meta's case they hire a lot while also having cumbersome interviews, I don't know. I just feel like there are perhaps some benefit in being quick to hire and fire.
What people dislike is the boom-bust cycle inherent to all levels of a market economy. During some years, these companies suck people up like a vacuum -- that can be bad if you're on the inside and all of a sudden the culture goes out the window, or if you're expected to onboard 3-4 people at the same time, or you end up with a reorg every quarter. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, companies shut down (non-backfill) hiring entirely and layoff huge percentages of the company, with no guarantee that you'll be safe just because you're doing a good job.
Human lives do not work like this. If you're getting married, if you have an unexpected hospital expense, if you want to buy a house -- these are not things that "market cycles" will plan around, but you have to.
Being quick to hire or fire is not the problem. Massive overhiring and massive layoffs are.
I always considered hooks a nice to have feature for devs to already validate that their PRs will probably satisfy certain CI checks. If they don't install or run them for whatever reason, it's on them to do another iteration and update the code to make it mergeable if CI complains. So I usually considered it fine that they are only opt-in, since the merge will be gated by a CI outside of the dev's control anyway.
Also seems that having a very capable military that lets you project power around the world also invites that power to be used. See for instance the Iran war. Quite pointless by all accounts and wouldn't have happened if the US didn't have aircraft carriers to send around the world.
So perhaps thriftiness in defense spending would also invite a prioritization in actual defensive capabilities?
I think the likely result would be more war. It wouldn't be with america, but without anerica providing protection to its allies in the region, the various countries in the region would probably be emboldened to fight it out themselves (im assuming in this scenario that russia and other great powers are also incapable of force projection. Obviously russia is busy right now, but historically they were knee deep in the middle east and much of us involvement now is a legacy of the cold war)
Even in a hypothetical situation where the USA had no aircraft carriers our military probably would have conducted some raids to delay Iran building nuclear weapons. The initial strikes against nuclear facilities were done with B-2 bombers launched from Missouri.
The threat that President Bush issued in 2002 was due to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorist groups, which was true then and is still true today. Historians can argue over whether that threat was a good idea at the time but it's too late to retract it now. We have to deal with the actual situation as it obtains today.
As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that so don't believe anything you hear. We're not even certain which faction is really in control of nuclear weapons policy. (This isn't an endorsement of the recent attacks.)
That's bullshit. He denounced half of all developing countries for sponsoring terrorism. And forgot to denounce all the ones that sponsored the terrorists that had just attacked the US.
> As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that so don't believe anything you hear.
The had elections at the time, and voted in the candidate promising nuclear weapons at the next year. So no, that's lying propaganda again.
Half? There were approximately 133 developing countries (depending on how you count) during the George W. Bush presidency so please to give us a list of 66 that he "denounced" for sponsoring terrorism.
Of course the reality is that going back to 2001 the US government has only ever designated seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism. Those were: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq.
Elections in Iran don't necessarily mean much in terms of nuclear weapons policy. It's not clear whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually had much power to impact weapons development one way or another. The real decision making authority appears to lie elsewhere.
This is laughably false. The leadership in Tehran is smart, and they know that nukes are the most assured path to the regime's self-preservation. (see: North Korea). They've been trying to build nukes since the 80s.
Does that really matter? Eventually it will be 99%, but even then I am not necessarily concerned until it crowds out human created songs.
Before AI, 99% of anything was trash and now with AI, perhaps 99.9% is. But the thing that matters is whether the remaining 1% or 0.1% is good or meaningful for us or not. Though I guess soon enough even AI music will be meaningful for us, but I don't think this precludes the existence of human musicians.
People who have been listening to music their entire lives isn’t the target audience. It’s mostly getting the young generations used to it, and accept it as a norm. Something about most people’s music taste formalize around high school/university times.
It’s close to how young people have never experienced pre-Fortnite/Roblox times, so they are fine with shelling out money for microtransactions.
How do you discover human-made songs in an ocean of slop? One of the reasons I subscribed to a music platform back in the day was the ability to discover new artists, and I found my fair share!
This is close to impossible nowadays, though I'm now giving Deezer a try since they're the only one doing something about it. Glad I cancelled Spotify 3y ago.
reply