How stupid do these CEOs think people are?
They’re not wrong though. The frequency with which these things still just make shit up is astonishingly bad. Very dismissive of a legitimate criticism.
Unwillingness to adapt to the destruction of the middle class and knowledge work is pretty reasonable tbh.
What mathematical guarantees? I don't see any mathematical results in the paper.
They are NOT as unaware of things as we are. That’s like someone seeing a software developer googling stuff and saying “see, they don’t know much more than me”. An expert refreshing their knowledge on Google is not the…
> in no universe is that a legitimate ML interview question Why not? This seems like the ML equivalent of FizzBuzz. If you don't know how matrix multiplication works well enough to implement it, I would argue that you…
But they likely did have their wives do a lot of the domestic heavy lifting.
Damn, really?
I think the time estimates depend heavily on the field. A mathematician recently told him that it would take him 1-2 weeks (with nothing else to do in that time) to digest a paper outside his main area.
Did you read the abstract?
What are you talking about? Did we read the same abstract?
Even with an accuracy score, it’s meaningless. Accuracy isn’t the right metric.
This was also a problem a decade ago. I asked a professor for research opportunities and ended up segmenting a bunch of images. That was it. No credit for that work, either (or pay).
Self-supervised training doesn’t involve human labelers, and that’s what’s responsible for most of the recent gains in LLM performance.
Deep nets are notoriously overconfident in their predictions. So why do you expect this approach to succeed?
Would you say the same about golf?
There is an Apple Pay option. I just used it!
Wouldn't ">=" be "not <"?
You’re joking, right?
If you seriously don’t think this will be widely abused, then you’re extremely optimistic. Spreading propaganda is the most obvious use case, assuming the resource requirement remains high. I don’t think it’s…
Serious question: do the people who work on this topic think they’re doing a good thing?
I guess that depends on your definition of “world.” For me, that would be a planet, not a moon.
Just ask it the definition of a mathematical term and watch it get it wrong. For example, I asked it to define the Kronecker product and it gave me a lot of correct information, but the actual equations were wrong.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't be. There is plenty of potential, but all sorts of (mostly non-technical) factors are getting in the way.
Can you recommend a few such places? :)
How stupid do these CEOs think people are?
They’re not wrong though. The frequency with which these things still just make shit up is astonishingly bad. Very dismissive of a legitimate criticism.
Unwillingness to adapt to the destruction of the middle class and knowledge work is pretty reasonable tbh.
What mathematical guarantees? I don't see any mathematical results in the paper.
They are NOT as unaware of things as we are. That’s like someone seeing a software developer googling stuff and saying “see, they don’t know much more than me”. An expert refreshing their knowledge on Google is not the…
> in no universe is that a legitimate ML interview question Why not? This seems like the ML equivalent of FizzBuzz. If you don't know how matrix multiplication works well enough to implement it, I would argue that you…
But they likely did have their wives do a lot of the domestic heavy lifting.
Damn, really?
I think the time estimates depend heavily on the field. A mathematician recently told him that it would take him 1-2 weeks (with nothing else to do in that time) to digest a paper outside his main area.
Did you read the abstract?
What are you talking about? Did we read the same abstract?
Even with an accuracy score, it’s meaningless. Accuracy isn’t the right metric.
This was also a problem a decade ago. I asked a professor for research opportunities and ended up segmenting a bunch of images. That was it. No credit for that work, either (or pay).
Self-supervised training doesn’t involve human labelers, and that’s what’s responsible for most of the recent gains in LLM performance.
Deep nets are notoriously overconfident in their predictions. So why do you expect this approach to succeed?
Would you say the same about golf?
There is an Apple Pay option. I just used it!
Wouldn't ">=" be "not <"?
You’re joking, right?
If you seriously don’t think this will be widely abused, then you’re extremely optimistic. Spreading propaganda is the most obvious use case, assuming the resource requirement remains high. I don’t think it’s…
Serious question: do the people who work on this topic think they’re doing a good thing?
I guess that depends on your definition of “world.” For me, that would be a planet, not a moon.
Just ask it the definition of a mathematical term and watch it get it wrong. For example, I asked it to define the Kronecker product and it gave me a lot of correct information, but the actual equations were wrong.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't be. There is plenty of potential, but all sorts of (mostly non-technical) factors are getting in the way.
Can you recommend a few such places? :)