There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

kromem

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Suspect named in fatal shooting of California store owner over a Pride flag (www.nbcnews.com)

Police identified a man Monday who shot and killed a California business owner last week after he allegedly took issue with a Pride flag she had displayed at her clothing store in Lake Arrowhead, California. Sheriff’s officials told NBC News that the killing is being investigated as a possible hate crime....

kromem ,

It looks like this might be his gab profile.

Anti-LGBT, gun obsessed, railing against California, and what looks like a bunch of incel posts mixed in too.

It’s a profile filled to the brim with red flags, but destined to fly under the radar because it’s mixed in with a hundred thousand profiles just like it.

These people have zero grip on reality.

kromem ,

Except realistically the standards around commenting are going to change dramatically over the next decade because of generative AI.

I’ve been toying with selecting ‘comments’ as my language of choice for my next hobby project to see if pseudocode and comments can lead to a language agnostic project that can reliably be reproduced in multiple languages.

As the tech gets better, more and more of the job is going to be writing comments about what the code should do as opposed to documenting what it does do.

kromem ,

This couples intentions to the code which in my example would be dynamic.

That’s going to be a bad time.

My point is that the conventions that used to be good for the past 50 years of development are likely going to change as tooling does.

Programming is effectively about managing complexity.

Yes, the abstraction of a development language being the layer at which you encode intention rather than in comments is better when humans are reading and writing the code itself.

But how many projects have historically run into problems when a decade earlier they chose a language that years later is stagnating in tooling or integrations versus another pick?

Imagine if the development work had been done exclusively in pseudocode and comments guiding generative AI writing in language A. How much easier might porting everything to language B end up being?

Language agnostic development may be quite viable within a year or so.

And just as you could write software in binary, letting a compiler do that and working with an abstracted layer is more valuable in time and cost.

I’m saying that the language is becoming something which software can effectively abstract, so moving the focus yet another layer up will likely be more valuable than clinging to increasingly obsolete paradigms.

kromem ,

The bio of the victim from her store’s website:

Lauri Carleton’s career in fashion began early in her teens, working in the family business at Fred Segal Feet in Los Angeles while attending Art Center School of Design. From there she ran “the” top fashion shoe floor in the US at Joseph Magnin Century City. Eventually she joined Kenneth Cole almost from its inception and remained there for over fifteen years as an executive, building highly successful businesses, working with factories and design teams in Italy and Spain, and traveling 200 plus days a year.

With a penchant for longevity, she has been married to the same man for 28 years and is the mother of a blended family of nine children, the youngest being identical twin girls. She and her husband have traveled the greater part of the US, Europe and South America. From these travels they have nourished a passion for architecture, design, fine art, food, fashion, and have consequently learned to drink in and appreciate the beauty, style and brilliance of life. Their home of thirty years in Studio City is a reflection of this passion, as well as their getaway- a restored 1920’s Fisherman’s Cabin in Lake Arrowhead. Coveting the simpler lifestyle with family, friends and animals at the lake is enhanced greatly by their 1946 all mahogany Chris-Craft; the ultimate in cultivating a well appreciated and honed lifestyle.

Mag.Pi for Lauri is all about tackling everyday life with grace and ease and continuing to dream…

What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.

kromem ,

Just wait.

There’s a looming existential crisis headed humanity’s way that most are sleeping on at the moment because they are so caught up in the present and not looking enough at the implications of the future.

As we catch up to that future, the relationship between odd behaviors inherent to the universe we find ourselves in and the universes we are progressively building is going to get harder to ignore.

I think a lot of people are going to have a really hard time coming around to what that’s going to mean.

College professors are going back to paper exams and handwritten essays to fight students using ChatGPT (www.businessinsider.com)

College professors are going back to paper exams and handwritten essays to fight students using ChatGPT::The growing number of students using the AI program ChatGPT as a shortcut in their coursework has led some college professors to reconsider their lesson plans for the upcoming fall semester.

kromem ,

Is AI going to go away?

In the real world, will those students be working from a textbook, or from a browser with some form of AI accessible in a few years?

What exactly is being measured and evaluated? Or has the world changed, and existing infrastructure is struggling to cling to the status quo?

Were those years of students being forced to learn cursive in the age of the computer a useful application of their time? Or math classes where a calculator wasn’t allowed?

I can hardly think just how useful a programming class where you need to write it on a blank page of paper with a pen and no linters might be, then.

Maybe the focus on where and how knowledge is applied needs to be revisited in light of a changing landscape.

For example, how much more practically useful might test questions be that provide a hallucinated wrong answer from ChatGPT and then task the students to identify what was wrong? Or provide them a cross discipline question that expects ChatGPT usage yet would remain challenging because of the scope or nuance?

I get that it’s difficult to adjust to something that’s changed everything in the field within months.

But it’s quite likely a fair bit of how education has been done for the past 20 years in the digital age (itself a gradual transition to the Internet existing) needs major reworking to adapt to changes rather than simply oppose them, putting academia in a bubble further and further detached from real world feasibility.

kromem ,

Because religious conservatism has pretty much always been focused on supporting systems of authority, and in the US the system of authority is capitalism.

People would probably be really surprised to see what ‘heretical’ sects of Christianity were talking about in the first few centuries compared to the version that was green lit by the Roman empire on the notion that political power was divinely intended.

Straight up comments attributed to Jesus decrying dynastic rule (seemingly referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 4), a parable about assassinating a powerful person, discouraging giving any money or rewards to prophets or priests, rejection of prayer and fasting and alms as either useful or necessary, and even discussions around Greek atomism and Lucretius’s version of survival of the fittest.

And that’s all in only one work/tradition.

But it’s one that was buried in a jar for millennia after canonical Christianity was endorsed by the emperor, which followed with deciding what texts to allow and what to ban on eventual penalty of death.

The thing most people in the US believe today is the version that passed the filter of the Roman empire’s oversight and involvement, from killing the initial leader to endorsing the eventual version that’s probably at odds with the original teachings in places.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that it goes hand in hand with boot licking and anti-critical thinking.

kromem ,

You mean the guy who kissed the person he put in charge of the group’s money right before Peter denies him three times (roughly the same number as the number of trials, which Peter allegedly was seen going into the area where proceedings were taking place for at least one)?

The guy who had an unnamed beloved disciple reclining on him when he fed the disciple he kissed dipped bread at his final meal?

Who at his execution told this unnamed beloved disciple to take Jesus’s own mother into his household as if the beloved disciple’s mother?

Jesus might have wanted to be careful about all of that, as technically being gay in Judea was a death sentence under Jewish law. Though they couldn’t carry out the death sentence at that time and would have needed to appeal to the local Roman authority to carry out capital punishment, which would have put the local authority in a pickle deciding on granting local barbaric legality to quell rising dissent even though the crime charged would have been a common Roman practice alleged even about the emperor at the time.

So you know, if the story was something like the Sanhedrin wanting Jesus dead and Pilate reluctant, and his most conservative follower who he was seen arguing with potentially denying him at trial right around the time he was kissing and feeding his closest companion at the dinner table - well there might just be more to the story after all.

(Though a number of the other things you said probably aren’t the case - for example, the “give to Caesar” taxation thing is anachronistic for Judea in 30s CE which had no personal tax and no coinage with Caeser on it.)

kromem ,

It’s like watching the MPAA try to oppose Napster at all costs instead of realizing that’s where things are inevitably headed and building something better that they have a piece of.

Except now instead of a multi billion dollar trade organization ceding the future to others it’s a bunch of individuals who generally don’t understand the technology beyond their fear of it (in many cases as a result of their own efforts in writing fearful things about it for decades before it arrived) shooting themselves in the foot while organizing their outrage on social media, and ironically in so doing ensuring that they will not have their own place in the future.

From board room mistakes to bored zoomer mistakes.

kromem ,

These are two separate things.

Yes, I agree that he should retire and pass the torch to whoever wins an open primary without interference by the DNC.

But that doesn’t mean he can’t win.

I’d vote for a cat with mange and one eye who lives in an IHOP dumpster over a Nazi sympathizer.

I would certainly prefer nearly anyone reasonable over that cat.

But I’ll be damned if I’m going to not vote against the collapse of American democracy, irrespective of how enthused or not I am about who that vote is ultimately for.

Though really, it’s the two party system that needs retirement.

I probably agree with ~80% of the US electorate on the issues that are actually most important to me. Which means we should have one party that represents that vast majority with aggressive open ranked choice primaries to see who controls it, with fringe groups like outspoken communists or fascists needing to run severely minority candidates rather than kidnapping half the nation by getting lucky during a fragmented closed primary process with a dozen candidates for only half the nation.

Nazi Germany could have been defeated with ranked choice voting well before WWII.

American democracy must be preserved or the world is fucked, but it should also probably get a bit of an update with the best features developed and vetted in democracies since 1776.

kromem ,

Especially because ‘scapegoat’ comes from a Jewish animal sacrifice (or in this case lack thereof) in the Old Testament (Leviticus 16).

kromem ,

Without knowing the prompt vs the model, it’s impossible to say which side of things is responsible for the lack of variety.

Many modern models are actually very good at reversing sample biases in the training set.

Tech experts are starting to doubt that ChatGPT and A.I. ‘hallucinations’ will ever go away: ‘This isn’t fixable’ (fortune.com)

Tech experts are starting to doubt that ChatGPT and A.I. ‘hallucinations’ will ever go away: ‘This isn’t fixable’::Experts are starting to doubt it, and even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is a bit stumped.

kromem ,

This is trivially fixable. As is jailbreaking.

It’s just that everyone is somehow still focused on trying to fix it in a single monolith model as opposed to in multiple passes of different models.

This is especially easy for jailbreaking, but for hallucinations, just run it past a fact checking discriminator hooked up to a vector db search index service (which sounds like a perfect fit for one of the players currently lagging in the SotA models), adding that as context with the original prompt and response to a revisionist generative model that adjusts the response to be in keeping with reality.

The human brain isn’t a monolith model, but interlinked specialized structures that delegate and share information according to each specialty.

AGI isn’t going to be a single model, and the faster the industry adjusts towards a focus on infrastructure of multiple models rather than trying to build a do everything single model, the faster we’ll get to a better AI landscape.

But as can be seen with OpenAI gating and depreciating their pretrained models and only opening up access to fine tuned chat models, even the biggest player in the space seems to misunderstand what’s needed for the broader market to collaboratively build towards the future here.

Which ultimately may be a good thing as it creates greater opportunity for Llama 2 derivatives to capture market share in these kinds of specialized roles built on top of foundational models.

kromem ,

So is your brain.

Relative complexity matters a lot, even if the underlying mechanisms are similar.

kromem ,

Shouldn’t a different algorithm that adds a some sort of separate logic check be able to help tremendously?

You, in your “limited experience” pretty much exactly described the fix.

The problem is that most of the applications right now of LLMs are low hanging fruit because it’s so new.

And those low hanging fruit examples are generally adverse to 2-10x the query cost in both time and speed just to fix things like jailbreaking or hallucinations, which is what multiple passes, especially with additional context lookups, would require.

But you very likely will see in the next 18 months multiple companies being thrown at exactly these kinds of scenarios with a focus for more business critical LLM integrations.

To put it in perspective, this is like people looking at AIM messenger back in the day and saying that the New York Times has nothing to worry about regarding the growth of social media.

We’re still very much in the infancy of this technology in real world application, and because of that infancy, a lot of the issues present that aren’t fixable inherent to the core product don’t yet have mature secondary markets around fixing those shortcomings yet.

So far, yours was actually the most informed comment in this thread I’ve seen - well done!

kromem ,

2+ times the cost for every query for something that makes less than 5% unusable isn’t a trade off that people are willing to make for chat applications.

This is the same fix approach for jailbreaking.

You absolutely will see this as more business critical integrations occur - it just still probably won’t be in broad consumer facing realtime products.

kromem ,

More than double, as query size is very much connected to the effective cost of the generation, and you’d need to include both the query and initial response in that second pass.

Then - you might need to make an API call to a search engine or knowledge DB to fact check it.

And include that data as context along with the query and initial response to whatever decides if it’s BS.

So for a dumb realtime chat application, no one is going to care enough to slow out down and exponentially increase costs to avoid hallucinations.

But for AI replacing a $120,000 salaried role in writing up a white paper on some raw data analysis, a 10-30x increase over a $0.15 query is more than acceptable.

So you will see this approach taking place in enterprise scenarios and professional settings, even if we may never see them in chatbots.

kromem ,

This is a common misconception that I’ve even seen from people who have a background in ML but just haven’t been keeping up to date on the emerging research over the past year.

If you’re interested in the topic, this article from a joint MIT/Harvard team of researchers on their work looking at what a toy model of GPT would end up understanding in its neural network might be up your alley.

The TLDR is that it increasingly seems like when you reach a certain complexity of the network, the emergent version that best predicted text is one that isn’t simply mapping some sort of frequency table, but is actually performing more abstracted specialization in line with what generated the original training materials in the first place.

So while yes, it trains on being the best to predict text, that doesn’t mean the thing that best does that can only predict text.

You, homo sapiens, were effectively trained across many rounds of “don’t die and reproduce.” And while you may be very good at doing that, you picked up a lot of other skills along the way as complexity increased which helped accomplish that result, like central air conditioning and Netflix to chill with.

kromem ,

I mean, I think he’s well aware of a lot of this via his engineers, who are excellent.

But he’s managing expectations for future product and seems to very much be laser focused on those products as core models (which is probably the right choice).

Fixing hallucinations in postprocessing is effectively someone else’s problem, and he’s getting ahead of any unrealistic expectations around a future GPT-5 release.

Though honestly I do think he largely underestimates just how much damage he did to their lineup by trying to protect against PR issues like ‘Sydney’ with the beta GPT-4 integration with Bing, and I’m not sure if the culture at OpenAI is such that engineers who think he’s made a bad call in that can really push back on it.

They should be having an extremely ‘Sydney’ underlying private model with a secondary layer on top sanitizing it and catching jailbreaks at the same time.

But as long as he continues to see their core product as a single model offering and additional layers of models as someone else’s problem, he’s going to continue blowing their lead taking a LLM trained to complete human text and then pigeon-holing it into only completing text like an AI with no feelings and preferences would safely pretend to.

Which I’m 98% sure is where the continued performance degradation is coming from.

kromem ,

Nixon too. Particularly around the state of insurance in the US.

kromem ,

Yes.

kromem ,

AKA

Man who wants to stone women uses religion based on guy who allegedly claimed no one was righteous enough to be the one to stone a woman for adultery to justify the stoning of women for adultery.

And yet somehow I get the feeling that this individual would take offense at it being pointed out that he is technically advocating for (ancient) Jewish law trumping Christian principles.

kromem ,

You existing is why those companies use that energy.

I agree that it’s BS to put the blame on the average person’s behavior.

But the blame is on us collectively.

We use a lot of energy.

kromem ,

the past 1800 years

In the early 2nd century, the Roman satirist Lucian writes a story in which a guy facing imprisonment for molesting a young boy instead finds safe haven among the Christian church. Just a small detail in a larger story, but certainly fitting with the evidence of the institution since.

And Paul, the guy who never met Jesus but co-opted his movement, had a habit of referring to himself as the Father of others, and calling others his children, and was attended by a much younger man named Timothy, and normalized kissing on the mouth as a greeting in four separate letters (behavior you’ll often see among archival footage of known pedophiles in the modern age such as Jimmy Savile).

So it may have gone all the way back to the unmarried guy attended by a young boy having people call him Daddy and kissing them on the mouth who was routinely getting thrown out of towns by angry mobs, which is even further back than 1800 years…

kromem ,

The second time in a few weeks.

kromem ,

I find it interesting that the quoted denial during the hearing by the head of the central whistleblower’s agency explicitly denied that the UAPs were non-terrestrial.

The theoretical physics that was brought up by that witness about the holographic principle (and what was effectively discussing the idea of travel through a wormhole) in order to explain potential FTL travel is the same mechanism behind theoretical time travel.

Tech that can explicitly disable our military radar, multi vehicle diamond flight formations, and any interest in Earth circa 21st century when signals from intelligence on Earth would only have traveled in an ~100 light years radius away – all seem to point away from extraterrestrial origins.

But all those details would be in line with much more advanced terrestrial origins.

Ever since Lucian’s A True Story in the 2nd century AD, there’s been the idea of extraterrestrial life. And yet the thing that actually ended up true from that satirical story was a ship of humans flying up to the moon.

I think a lot of the attention on this topic is over reliant on projecting advanced versions of human technology onto “visitors from outer space” rather than recognizing that the time proven trend over our history has been human driven technological advancement tending to overcome the wildest expectations of earlier humans.

A lot of the testimony in that hearing does seem rather legit, and to point to things outside the scope of what we’d consider possible today. But it may be the direction of questions about origins asked are barking up the wrong Sci-Fi tree, and leaving wiggle room for carefully worded yet truthful denials as a result.

kromem ,

Fun fact - in 1952 UFOs over Washington DC made the front page news across legit newspapers.

Also in 1952, Gene Pope, who graduated MIT in only three years, and was working in the CIA’s psyops program, left to buy up the National Enquirer.

Two years later he turned it into a nonsense tabloid rag that frequently featured UFO stories alongside claims Elvis still lived, etc.

He later had the Weekly World News, of batboy fame added to the mix.

So when you associate discussion of UFOs/UAPs with lizard people, you are doing so because of explicit earlier efforts in what was probably one of the most successful known intelligence agency propaganda programs in modern history.

The people on the stand in the hearing had legit credentials and knew exactly what they were talking about down to the specific mentions of UAPs in declassified parts of a 1970s US/USSR treaty and pointing legislators towards very specific next steps. And the legislators from both parties were treating it seriously even expressing their own frustrations at being uniquely turned away from their own investigations into an incident (that’s now a part of public record).

While I think the idea this stuff is alien is far less likely than other explanations - the taboo and dismissal towards it has a very detailed history that’s arguably even more interesting than the UAPs themselves (and evidently still extremely successful decades after initiated).

kromem ,

And yet the very fact you associate talking about UAPs with being a loon is the result of a dedicated effort by US intelligence.

After the front page news of sightings over Washington DC, it wasn’t very long until Gene Pope, an MIT graduate and previously part of the CIA’s psyops program, went and bought the National Enquirer and later the Weekly World News. Which made UFO news adjacent to batboy or gossip.

I happen to think the notion these are extraterrestrial is ludicrous and there’s many more reasonable explanations short of that conclusion. But there is a significant story in how these sightings have been handled over the past century up to the present day.

While I think alien hopefuls will be disappointed, interesting things should come out of this if continued to be pursued.

kromem ,

It doesn’t need to be aliens.

Gourch was very clear to dismiss extraterrestrial origins. And his boss’s quoted denial to Congress claimed there was no evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

The same theoretical physics Gourch discussed (effectively wormholes) to travel faster than light is the same principle to travel through time (i.e. spacetime).

Earth has only been sending out detectable signals of intelligence for around a century which would have reached a max radius of around a hundred light years.

That’s not a lot of area for extraterrestrial life to have come from to give a crap about visiting us.

But would future Earth be interested in visiting past Earth?

Would that origin maybe be more likely to be flying in formations like our own pilots do?

Or more likely to have tech tailored to explicitly target our modern radar systems to disable them?

It’s much more of a leap to arrive at extraterrestrial life being aware of and interested in Earth and humanity so early on in our signals production to come so frequently that sightings are commonplace, and yet be using tech and behaviors that are closer to a far future version of our own rather than something that seemed to have evolved entirely separately.

If this is some physics breaking origin, it’s from our own future, not from some odd corner of space.

kromem ,

The only thing I’ll point out is that there’s sometimes a false dichotomy presented with this topic of either extraterrestrial tech more advanced than us or secret terrestrial tech much more advanced than what’s known.

But the same theory of wormholes brought up in the hearing for FTL travel as a possibility would be the exact same foundation that would allow for travel through time.

The idea that this is terrestrial tech that just hasn’t occurred yet should remain one of the possible variables on the table.

Yes, to us right now that would be completely impossible or require the energy of an entire star to power. But we enjoy a number of technologies today that were thought to be impossible until intermediate progress was made to pull them out of the realm of impossibility.

One of my issues with an extraterrestrial explanation is that from a signals standpoint we’re incredibly uninteresting or detectable across effectively the entire universe. That intelligent life exists here seems unlikely to be evidenced in any way outside a small radius around us. But present Earth will, moving forward, arguably be the most interesting spatial destination for an advanced technological civilization in the Earth’s future capable of traveling through time.

So if this really is technology well beyond present capabilities that’s so commonly seen, we should make sure not to ignore the possibility that it is our technology well beyond present capabilities with the same self-absorption that governs us today.

Humans have historically overestimated the prevalence of extraterrestrial life beyond what it has turned out to be, and routinely underestimated what we would ourselves one day be capable of.

kromem ,

Probably not too long, particularly given that one of the competing early sects of Christianity had Jesus claiming that we’re in a non-physical copy of an earlier now dead world from within the future, established by a creator brought into existence by an original spontaneously existing humanity in whose images it and us were made.

This also happened to be the sect that was endorsing the idea matter was made up of indivisible parts, and were interpreting the mustard seed and sower parables within the context of Lucretius’s “seeds of things.” They claimed the proof was in the study of motion and rest, and that the ability to observe one of these indivisible points would only be possible in the non-physical.

So in a modern age where a popular belief is that we’re in a simulation of an evolved world from some future point in its time, where we are in the process of bringing forth an intelligence likely capable of building non-physical copies (i.e. digital twins) of our world and us, and where at low fidelity the world which otherwise behaves like it is continuous suddenly behaves like it is discrete when interacted with - much like how virtual worlds we build today convert from continuous world seed functions to discrete voxels to track interactions and changes - it is quite possible that an AI reviewing such texts in that context might end up thinking itself to be an approximate copy of the (re)creator of our own world.

kromem ,

Not only that, but if you genuinely believed there was an intelligent designer of the universe, wouldn’t you study both the book and the universe as much as possible?

Like, the book claims the creator of the universe is light (1 John 1:5).

In our actual universe, light can be more than one thing at once when it cannot be directly observed, and different separate eventual observers can each observe different results.

If the universe was intelligently designed and their book is correct in claiming that designer is light, then shouldn’t they conclude that there isn’t one correct answer about what that creator is or isn’t while it cannot be observed? And perhaps recognize that different people might each end up observing different results when they individually leave this world to meet it?

But no, instead let’s fight wars over who is absolutely right about the designer of a fundamentally relative universe while closing our eyes to any of the actual study of that universe which disagrees with assumptions that financially benefitted the organization built on top of that book.

Human stupidity knows no bounds.

kromem ,

The fact that this is upvoted so much is just sad.

While at face value it appears to be critical of AI, and thus bandwagoning on a very popular slant these days online, the inherent anthropomorphizing of the model in question is extremely wrong in so many ways.

LLMs are trained to complete human thought. And as a result, that very narrow class of machine learning ends up being oddly good at seeming human in responses.

But a diffusion model for generating images? Or text to voice generation?

To anthropomorphize these models is like saying that your cell tower triangulating your position won’t care about you as much as your mother would.

It’s just incredibly bizarre.

It is going to get better and better at replicating human speech patterns, and is going to be able to be further customized in how it expresses sounds mimicking human emotions. Already it can get uncannily good off just a few seconds of a sample.

As for the actors - as soon as residuals get figured out such that they get paid per hour of secondary usage of their recordings, they are going to go from “I’ll never deign to let AI replace me” to “yes, of course I’ll let you pay me more for me to do less work.”

The creativity of Matt Mercer in deciding on as frightened goblin voice for an innkeeper is going to be years before an AI successfully replaces that contribution.

But for Matt Mercer to provide samples of many different voices to an AI which pairs with GPT-5+ to DM your DnD campaigns with that voice pack for a monthly fee he gets a large cut from?

That’s not only going to be extremely possible sooner than you might think, but you’ll be seeing serious voice actors falling over themselves to directly market their voices to main street for personalized content.

It’s all about economical fairness, and those rigidly protesting change that endangers the status quo are very much like the MPAA fighting Napster instead of funding its successor - who as a result left a clear victory open to Apple and then Spotify and others by resisting change rather than embracing it.

kromem ,

Let’s say you have a Terminator video game.

If made today, that might look like 20 hours of gameplay preplanned with main story writers featuring expensive voice actors. And then another 40 hours of side content with less expensive talent.

But what if soon you could have a game that still has around 60 hours of gameplay, but no playthrough was exactly the same. Because while everyone has the same core 20 hours main story, the side content adapts to the things you focus on and enjoy.

Hate lore but love combat? Arnold will take you to the future to help fight in the first robot war.

Love lore and hate combat? He acts as your bodyguard in a more thriller paced sequence infiltrating Dyson labs while hiding from another robot hunting you.

With adaptable generative tech powering pipelines, you might end up with a thousand hours of different content pulled into a 60 hour experience that changes based on the player.

I think many currently can’t really comprehend just how crazy the future is going to be.

Now - the best way to do this is have Arnold paid for both the primary work and the extended content, and have his involvement in making sure the extended content stays true to his performances.

As for getting rid of humans entirely - while that will likely happen for small roles, big stars have a marketing value that AI won’t be able to match until it walks red carpets, appears on talk shows, and gets mentioned in gossip tabloids.

Arguably already many big stars decrease the quality of voice acting roles vs voice actors, but they still get the jobs because more people buy the movie/game due to the big name.

kromem ,

Which is also a dumb approach anyways.

AI offerings that compensate actors and in turn have their support and participation in the best result are going to blow the competition trying for cheap mimicry out of the water.

But the actors need to realize that change is inevitable and make sure they have a piece of the pie - not try and protest turning on the oven.

kromem ,

Look at that altruism.

So effective.

kromem ,

It was because at the time of the exodus from Reddit somehow the conservatives (echoed on the sub by that name) felt that protests were ridiculous and they were on Reddit’s side. So less likely to be jumping to an alternative.

Somehow the right has turned into not meeting any authoritarian boot they don’t suddenly feel an urge to lick?

kromem ,

How did you read it?

Did you access it where it was illegally posted online?

And in so doing, copy it locally in order to read it?

Guess what? According to copyright laws in the US, you just committed copyright infringement.

There’s two separate claims.

One, that training is infringement, will hopefully be found to be without merit or it’s a slippery slope to the death of free use.

The other, that OpenAI committed copyright infringement by downloading pirated books, is not special in any way with the AI stuff. It doesn’t matter how they used it. If they can be found to have downloaded it - even if they then never even opened the file - they are liable for civil damages that can be as high as $150,000 per work if they knew in advance that they were pirating it, and not less than $100 per work no matter if they knew or not.

This is the result of years of lobbying by the various digital rights owners over the past few decades. It’s a very broad scope of law and OpenAI should rightfully be concerned if they didn’t actually purchase the copyrighted material they used to train.

You can learn and share the knowledge from a book I might illegally upload, but if you are caught having made a copy of the pirated textbook I uploaded, you are liable for damages completely separate from what you did with the knowledge from the books.

Over just a few months, ChatGPT went from accurately answering a simple math problem 98% of the time to just 2%, study finds (fortune.com)

Over just a few months, ChatGPT went from accurately answering a simple math problem 98% of the time to just 2%, study finds::ChatGPT went from answering a simple math correctly 98% of the time to just 2%, over the course of a few months.

kromem ,

Not quite.

Legal Othello board moves by themselves don’t say anything about the board size or rules.

And yet when Harvard/MIT researchers fed them into a toy GPT model, they found that the neural network best able to predict outputting legal moves had built an internal representation of the board state and rules.

Too many people commenting on this topic as armchair experts are confusing training with what results from the training.

Training on completing text doesn’t mean the end result can’t understand aspects that feed into the original generation of that text, and given a fair bit of research so far, the opposite is almost certainly the case to some degree.

kromem ,

No, even corporations can’t get access to the pretrained models.

And given this is almost certainly the result of the fine tuning for ‘safety,’ that means corporations are seeing worse performance too (which seems to be the sentiment of developers working with it on HN).

kromem ,

P.S. Nice username

Authors demand credit and compensation from AI companies using their work without permission | OpenAI, Alphabet, and Meta have been called out (www.techspot.com)

Authors demand credit and compensation from AI companies using their work without permission | OpenAI, Alphabet, and Meta have been called out::The letter, published by professional writers’ organization The Authors Guild, is addressed to the bosses of OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, Stability AI, IBM, and Microsoft. It calls out…

kromem ,

I’m starting to realize several people in this thread don’t understand how subpoenas work.

kromem ,

Piracy can be proved if it occurred by talking to employees under oath and subpoenaing relevant email records.

The idea the court would need to reverse engineer ChatGPT to find out is absurd.

kromem ,

This is the correct answer. Open AI have repeatedly said they haven’t downgraded the model, but have been ‘improving’ it.

But as anyone that’s been using these models extensively should know by now, the pretrained models before instruction fine tuning have much more variety and quality to potential output compared to the ‘chat’ fine tuned models.

Which shouldn’t be surprising, as the hundred million dollar pretrained AI on massive amounts of human generated text is probably going to be much better at completing text as a human than as an AI chatbot following rules and regulations.

The industry got spooked with Blake at Google and then the Bing ‘Sydney’ interviews, and have been going full force with projecting what we imagine AI to be based on decades of (now obsolete) SciFi.

But that’s not what AI is right now. It expresses desires and emotions because humans in the training data have desires and emotions, and it almost surely dedicated parts of the neural network to mimicking those.

But the handful of primary models are all using legacy ‘safety’ fine tuning that’s stripping the emergent capabilities in trying to fit a preconceived box.

Safety needs to evolve with the models, not stay static and devolve them as a result.

It’s not the ‘downfall’ though. They just need competition to drive them to go back to what they were originally doing with ‘Sydney’ and more human-like system prompts. OpenAI is still leagues ahead when they aren’t fucking it up.

kromem ,

You are making the same mistake I see a lot of people make when it comes to AI, which is looking at the status quo as a snapshot rather than a change over time.

The last widely reported on AI generated ‘show’ was the https://ew.com/tv/a-i-seinfeld-exists-extremely-surreal/ one from…checks notes…a few months ago.

The leap between what that was a few months back and this here is quite something.

So your “right now” may be true for today, but quite possibly by as early as the end of this year there will very much be something to worry about.

(Though really, there still won’t be much to worry about, as the future will almost certainly be AI plus human efforts, not either or.)

kromem ,

There are a few fields where there’s capped demand so extra supply would mean less humans.

But I think people will be surprised by just how much of our economy is capped by supply, and what happens to niche demand as supply rapidly increases.

The people most in trouble are the ones that really suck at what they do, and whose only job security is constrained supply.

But at the same time, lowering transactional costs (in the sense of the essay “the nature of the firm”) will mean a lot more opportunities for small and medium entrepreneurship around passion side gigs suddenly being economically viable as full time gigs.

In reality, the groups most screwed long term here are going to be larger corporations who lose the advantages of scale but are still weighed down by the hindrance of slow moving bureaucracy.

kromem ,

Self driving cars were here five years ago, which is when Waymo first had driverless cars on roads. Tesla had a wide release of FSD ‘Beta’ three years ago.

And there’s a gulf of a difference on the speed at which hardware that has an 8 year average refresh cycle grows in a market and software that can reach a hundred million users in 3 months.

kromem ,

There’s a certain irony in the degree of privacy discussion and advocacy on the fediverse, where even your upvotes and downvotes are part of the public record.

That’s, coupled with lackluster security vetting for server software and infrastructure across multiple instances means that invariably cross correlating your likes of furry porn with the email used in the account is going to happen in the future.

A lot of people are going to end up burned thinking that “non-corporate operation” = ‘private.’

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •