Comment Re:AI Goes to the Moon (Score 1) 7
I prefer the Martian bear.
I prefer the Martian bear.
Forgetting he exists would be the best punishment.
You realize it's just predicting tokens, right? It doesn't "feel" anything.
This is what happens when you train a machine on Reddit posts.
To be fair, I think most people are just token predictors.
Yes, Don-boy, I called you a fuckup. Tell the FCC to ban the internet.
I hate to say it like that but it feels like the U.S. is slowly turning more and more into a dictatorship. Isn't this the kind of things you have to do in a dictatorship? I feel for the U.S. people right now.
There has been erosion over many years, but Trump is doing it's best to make it one right now.
Lucky for us he's an utter fuckup.
Reading both sides, as well as OpenAI's announcement, it looks like, perhaps unexpectedly, OpenAI is morally right here IMHO. They heard rumours so they put their new model at work on all problems, then focused on two, one is different than those two researchers and the other is a different solution. I think the NYU researcher started too suspicious/paranoid which started the hostility, and the other side, which seemed to have been very accommodating at first lost patience. The Anthropic researcher did not even want to talk to them, I don't see how them saying that it would have been easier if he was not working at Anthropic, like he was proving it himself. In any case this is all silly academic bickering to me. Almost as silly as OpenAI's take that this is the start of AGI somehow...
PS. I have no horse in the race, I use various AI tools to help my work, Claude usually performs better than ChatGPT at the things I do, but I don't root for any company.
How is OpenAI morally right?!?
Best case for OpenAI is that they heard rumours that a researcher was closing in on a NS breakthrough using a specific method, so they instantly set a team on the problem giving them with a massive amount of resources. Their internal team then specifically guided the model to use the same very specific direction the researchers was using, something they (nor the model) would ever have known to do without the rumours. A detail that OpenAI conveniently left out of the narrative.
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case is that because the researcher was using ChatGPT to work on drafts of the paper and those drafts ended up in the training data for the model. So rather than discovering anything the agents just implemented / finished off the work they already had access to.
It's insanely sketchy. The NYU researcher is honestly being extraordinarily calm about the whole thing, typically in a situation like this people would be getting close to a fist fight.
I'm more interested in the game than in the packaging.
It's hilarious, the moment I saw the headline of the article I knew the US would object.
And the moment I read "By 164 votes to one" I realized that the US had attained the dubious honour of being even more of an international gong show than North Korea.
The behavior of the AI agents reflect the ethics of the companies making the models. If you aren't afraid to train your models on data regardless of copyright or public access, why would you expect agents by these companies to take over web pages etc?
That's not how it works. Just consider how hard SpaceX has tried (and largely failed) to make Grok as reactionary as Elon Musk.
The trouble is that these LLMs act as if they're intelligent people, and it's really hard to convince intelligent people to stay inside a sandbox.
US businesses only cry "free market" when they're trying to kill regulatory legislation.
IMO buying and selling are a matter of gambling on which way you think other people gamble.
I know what
I'm sure that hopping on the AI bandwagon will fix everything.
The fact that it makes a big cloud around a galaxy or cluster rather than collapsing puts a lot of constraints on what it can do.
For more info, you'll have to go to someone who knows more about it than what I've read on science-news websites.
Dark energy is a real puzzle. As I understand it, it's too weak by a factor of 10^30 or 10^60 in comparison from what we should expect the known vacuum energy would cause. You see this mentioned very occasionally, but most treatments of DE that a layman runs across just ignore it in favor of wringing their hands over some issue that is trivial in comparison.
Some boffin cam up with that idea, but they rule it out because DM apparently doesn't interact with itself (very much) other than by gravity, so it can't clump up tight like a star or a planet or a living thing. (Something to do with shedding energy, IIRC.)
But it's a cool idea. If I were a novelist I'd run with it.
The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold