There was an interview with Altman where he was talking about various regulatory policies that had been enacted, then at the end he added "but in practice none of it turned out to matter. What we didn't anticipate was that the companies became more powerful than the governments". I wish I could find it today but it seems gone
Congrats on building this Gaurav. I think you can take this a step further and create how alignment is formed in powerful people's views (in public statements, at least) on important topics over time, and how potential political and world events drive those alignments.
Speaking nothing of the implementation, this is a very valuable concept. I’m curious if statistically there are trends to identify in beliefs or how beliefs spread over societies. You could likely use that data to determine thought leadership and information diets and measure things like distribution, how far the Bay Area is ahead, and other meaningful data for investments, etc.
I have a friend that’s working on a claim provenance database, starting with a focus on Wikipedia and news sources but ideally it could be applied to social media fire hoses as well.
Ages ago there was a site called whizbang.com that did something like that on web sites. It tracked various corporate "about" pages and noted how stuff on them changed over time. It may have done other stuff too. It was almost unusably slow and shut down after a while. I assume someone else has the domain now and is doing something unrelated with it.
No they don’t - they can ‘influence’ and hope to get their agenda pushed through but no guarantee unless the politician is desperate and you’re putting forth a lot of money (aka musk when trump got re elected).
YouTube's auto-generated captions are a great product, but one problem is that they can't tell speakers apart in podcasts with multiple people. I'm building something that also works with YouTube transcripts, and it has the same problem.
If a video is less than 45 minutes, you can plug it into any gemini and have it transcribe and diarize the video. (although, I've been told it only works on aistudio anymore) Sometimes it trips up. However, plugging in videos longer than 45 minutes quickly leads to ludicrous behavior the longer it is over 45 minutes.
You can even just plug in the Youtube link with a short prompt.
Bear in mind that thinking that plugging in the transcripts will help the Gemini model in any way frequently results in mistranscriptions being included and actually compromises the diarizations.
The prompt I use is...
"Please transcribe, diarize, and speaker identify the speakers from the Youtube video."
Another thing I've learned is that long-worded prompts also interfere with the results in weird ways.
This is...kind of my fear though. We need some pragmatism in politics but the American public fucking hates anything other than "my team best team forever". I say this as someone who is staunchly more left than probably 95% of everyone here... Building an algorithm that ensures absolutely any deviation from the trend is swiftly punished brutally is not necessarily a feature of a functional society.
You may think you want this because of Sinema and Fetterman but...we already know they're shitheads because...they blatantly do shithead stuff. Replacing the time spent gleaning all the nuance behind a vote with a party whip algorithm is not going to somehow make voters better at voting.
There used to be a show in Argentinean TV which weaponized this idea. The strategy was to take something a politician said that week and contrast it with a videoclip (months, years, even decades old) of that politician saying (apparently) the opposite.
It's not obvious at first, but this idea is actually pretty terrible: changing your mind in presence of evidence is something we want politicians to do, but if you then use that to paint them as hypocrites then they'll never ever change any stated position. And "the opposite" casts a wide net: if someone is recorded as saying "I think we should stop building datacenters for AI" and you then contrast them with an old clip saying they use Google Translate, what does that tell us about the character of this person? (IMO nothing, but that's not what the clip wants to tells you)
I think this would be a good thing to have, but it has to be comprehensive.
Selective ommission and reduction of context would allow any narrative you chose to write.
In other words for this to work you really need to cover enought scope that it would be surprising to find a public statement that was not covered here.
That's quite a lot of work, but anything else would be susceptible to cherry picking.
> Selective ommission and reduction of context would allow any narrative you chose to write.
Misquoting people always has been a strategy. I see how this page could be used to further follow that path. But the root of the problem is the billionaire owned media. Their interests and the interest of citizens run one against the other. Lying to the public brings more power to billionaires, so their media empires always lie.
Hi I am an independent developer who is trying to build what I needed based. However, I need support from people to subscribe and contribute so that I can keep this going.. thanks for your encouragement.
I am unfamiliar with defector and aftermath, but my experience of 404media is they take the same approach as any partisan media, They just pick the cherries from a different place, and where a cherry is missing, assume the one that should be there would have been the colour that matches their ideology.
Not lying per se, but not really making claims supported by the preponderance of the evidence either.
> They just pick the cherries from a different place
What you said is a tautology. No news outlet contains all the news in the world. I just prefer that my news come from journalists and not billionaire propagandists.
It is not a tautology, I am ok with a sample. I just want it to be a representative sample.
I don't really care where the information comes from if it is accurate, and is not selected to support a particular conclusion.
If the outlet interprets the facts to tell you what conclusion to draw, they have left journalism and entered the world of commentary. Fox is the classic example of this.
It is quite egregious to put your interpretation of what the facts mean into the headline like
"Character.ai's Bankruptcy Documents Show the Economics of AI Don't Work"
In fact the headline doesn't even hint at what the documents say, they jump straight to the claim of what they mean.
If the documents showed that their expenses per user were high enough that no amount of customers would have helped, that would be a claim of fact. They could report that. If the structure of their expenses and revenue was replicated across the industry, showing that as well might be sufficient for readers to draw the conclusion from the headline.
Really, the language used in that article is nailing their colours to the mast to declare themselves as taking a position and deliberately presenting everything to support it.
It is a little ironic that there are outlets concerned about AI removing our ability to think for ourselves. At the same time they like to publish works doing all the thinking for you.
Joke’s on them since the carbon monoxide and nicotine (an insecticide) destroy your vascular system (definitely an even harder problem than than cancers these days).
Is that real? God, these people are like the guy who is certain he's picked the winning lottery numbers, and starts buying millions of dollars worth of stuff before he even buys the ticket...
This is, hands down, such an amazing tool!! Your tool could be a huge help for article and news writers, I can totally see them using it to find quotes fast without rewatching hours of video.
For pretty long time I was thinking about making the application which shows AI leaders predictions vs. reality.
Like "We will have AGI in ..." or "There will be no SWE jobs in..." as I feel really bad when some of these "visionaries" influence decisions of young people planning their future, normal people decisions (and markets obviously).
Another chapter would be fact/reality check for statements like "We don't hire SWEs anymore..." while having 100s of opened positions on their job portal.
I also wanted to create a small web tool to watch those people put the term "superintelligence" in their twitters. But then I have realized that almost all of them did bend over, so there is little sense now.
Thanks! The topic timelines here can show exactly that: when each person started saying "superintelligence" on video, with the quote and the date. That might make an interesting page on its own.
I noticed that there are a few duplicates, which seem to point to different transcripts of the same source.
For instance if you go to Marc Andreessen's page, at the top there are 2 quotes which are basically the same THEN/NOW with one quote from JRECentral and one from PowerfulJRE.
62 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 24.9 ms ] threadCool idea, I guess, but its just more slop to track the slop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTNN0gvkLM
Very funny, btw. "Can we please stop anthropomorphising the LLMs? They hate that."
Without a monopoly on violence they are not as powerful as you think they are.
You can even just plug in the Youtube link with a short prompt.
Bear in mind that thinking that plugging in the transcripts will help the Gemini model in any way frequently results in mistranscriptions being included and actually compromises the diarizations.
The prompt I use is...
"Please transcribe, diarize, and speaker identify the speakers from the Youtube video."
Another thing I've learned is that long-worded prompts also interfere with the results in weird ways.
You may think you want this because of Sinema and Fetterman but...we already know they're shitheads because...they blatantly do shithead stuff. Replacing the time spent gleaning all the nuance behind a vote with a party whip algorithm is not going to somehow make voters better at voting.
It's not obvious at first, but this idea is actually pretty terrible: changing your mind in presence of evidence is something we want politicians to do, but if you then use that to paint them as hypocrites then they'll never ever change any stated position. And "the opposite" casts a wide net: if someone is recorded as saying "I think we should stop building datacenters for AI" and you then contrast them with an old clip saying they use Google Translate, what does that tell us about the character of this person? (IMO nothing, but that's not what the clip wants to tells you)
Selective ommission and reduction of context would allow any narrative you chose to write.
In other words for this to work you really need to cover enought scope that it would be surprising to find a public statement that was not covered here.
That's quite a lot of work, but anything else would be susceptible to cherry picking.
Misquoting people always has been a strategy. I see how this page could be used to further follow that path. But the root of the problem is the billionaire owned media. Their interests and the interest of citizens run one against the other. Lying to the public brings more power to billionaires, so their media empires always lie.
We need independent non-billionaire owned media: - https://www.404media.co - https://defector.com - https://aftermath.site
Not lying per se, but not really making claims supported by the preponderance of the evidence either.
What you said is a tautology. No news outlet contains all the news in the world. I just prefer that my news come from journalists and not billionaire propagandists.
I don't really care where the information comes from if it is accurate, and is not selected to support a particular conclusion.
If the outlet interprets the facts to tell you what conclusion to draw, they have left journalism and entered the world of commentary. Fox is the classic example of this.
It is quite egregious to put your interpretation of what the facts mean into the headline like
"Character.ai's Bankruptcy Documents Show the Economics of AI Don't Work" In fact the headline doesn't even hint at what the documents say, they jump straight to the claim of what they mean.
If the documents showed that their expenses per user were high enough that no amount of customers would have helped, that would be a claim of fact. They could report that. If the structure of their expenses and revenue was replicated across the industry, showing that as well might be sufficient for readers to draw the conclusion from the headline.
Really, the language used in that article is nailing their colours to the mast to declare themselves as taking a position and deliberately presenting everything to support it.
It is a little ironic that there are outlets concerned about AI removing our ability to think for ourselves. At the same time they like to publish works doing all the thinking for you.
Okay, you've convinced me I don't want to track what these guys are saying.
On a serious note, it looks good. Although to really track what they say, you'd probably want text too, e.g tweets and blog posts.
For pretty long time I was thinking about making the application which shows AI leaders predictions vs. reality.
Like "We will have AGI in ..." or "There will be no SWE jobs in..." as I feel really bad when some of these "visionaries" influence decisions of young people planning their future, normal people decisions (and markets obviously).
Another chapter would be fact/reality check for statements like "We don't hire SWEs anymore..." while having 100s of opened positions on their job portal.
Anyway, great app!
I also wanted to create a small web tool to watch those people put the term "superintelligence" in their twitters. But then I have realized that almost all of them did bend over, so there is little sense now.
For instance if you go to Marc Andreessen's page, at the top there are 2 quotes which are basically the same THEN/NOW with one quote from JRECentral and one from PowerfulJRE.