"The surprising thing we find is that, essentially, you can use the largest model to help you automatically design the smaller ones"

Hey, how do we get a clickbait title out of this?

couple decent thoughts. That the real issue is more economic than technological is the reality that's good to focus on.

Others just really display how little they know about both the issue and the technology.

"That AI is conceived and enabled by brilliant, ambitious, but immature men" was a bit of a funny line, because I'm wondering how you could defend that statement among minds like Melanie Mitchell. I mean, many of my favorites in the field are anything but "immature" In any way.

Some complain about the Canadian standards of disregarding copyright for educational purposes. I've always thought that was something that shows great humanity in the face of a system fueled by greed.

Remember when copyright only lasted a couple decades, and virtually everything else existed in public domain? We used to have these weird ideas like thinking about the betterment of the general public or educational systems were important for some reason.

All of the complaints are extremely unspecific. Do they care about open source vs corporate? Do they even understand the basic concept of how these things work?

Does our economic system need to be fixed? Yes. Are we going to get there by crying about the terror of the "soullessness" of machines and education? I doubt it.

It's kinda gross. Also, not saying that shouldn't be addressed, since it should, but I'm more concerned with the state of mobile app markets. Pick an game at random and i can probably show you a plethora of ways it is specifically designed to take advantage of subconscious habits and weaknesses. Especially of the vulnerable.

I've seen children gathering and spending excessive money in the most unhealthy habitual ways conceivable, and it's bad enough for vulnerable adults who weren't trained into the mindset since youth.

People don't even understand the problem, and will defend the practice as their freedom. Who, while compelled by addiction, won't be defensive when their problem is brought to light? But it's bad enough that the popular opinion seems to be in defence of the practices.

It's just sitting perfectly within the gray area outside of people's concerns or cares. the bastards with no qualms taking advantage of the vulnerable or incapable are running away with hundreds of billions of dollars. Money out of the pockets of those who couldn't mentally compete with professionally developed and financed methods of manipulation.

Deceptive designs are bad enough. Blatant scams or unethically disturbing advertisements should have been bad enough. Blatantly manipulating should be well over the mountain of shit that needs addressing on this front.

Won't even get into the topic of roblox..

i hate giving anecdotal evidence, but i wasn't expecting it to be such a black and white change for me personally.

i can draw a clear line between the previous twenty years of my life, and a few years ago.

it's just weirdly amazing to able to have a small thing go wrong and just be like "ah dangit." rather than having a depressive spiral and mourning my own existence for the rest of the day.

not that i don't sometimes have pessimistic thoughts or bad days, it's just not overwhelmingly defining of my every moment.

at the very least, i'm eager to see a lot more research being done. if it is legitimate, and others can have the same change in life experience that i've had, then it's a damn tragedy it hasn't been studied more thoroughly ages ago.

Humanity is already plunging into dystopia without AI. Changing A.I. Doesn't matter as much as changing our economic system, and flaunting of wealth and power to ensure it only gets worse. A.I. Just makes it more immediate and obvious.

I've been ranting about this since 2016.

Having consumer trust in developing AI vehicles is hard enough without this asshole's ego and lies muddying the water.

long response,

TLDR: it's not what they're saying, but how they're saying it. while i don't disbelieve the possibility of shitty actors doing shitty things which resulted in these claims, i do disagree with the emphasis used while addressing the issue.

also this is more of an open letter answering your question, so my statements and questions are open and not directed towards you personally.

firstly, I definitely agree with a lot of the article. the person responsible for cops using this technology for arrests needs to be put down hard. i think there needs to be very strict conditions showing how the system mitigates bias before such use is even potentially ethical.

the primary reason i think articles like this earn a lot of friction is that much of the framing has been towards entirely defining their and other people's personalities and lives and actions purely by their demographic. personally i despise the trend, and have grown an appreciation for things like VR socialization for this reason, where you are yourself and what you choose to be. it feels much less likely for others to dismiss your opinion, insult you, or attack you purely due to your demographic.

this type of trend would explain why many would find it credible when "Google AI head Jeff Dean acknowledged that the paper “surveyed valid concerns about LLMs,” but claimed it “ignored too much relevant research.”

frankly, i believe much in how these people are addressing the issue itself encourages "the exacerbation of racism and sexism." which they claim, and i hope believe to be against. i think encouraging people to define themselves and others by demographic above all else is harmful and segregationist. those i am familiar with in the field are very eager to ensure a solution to the problem of bias, without instigating or encouraging a culture focused on people defining themselves purely by their demographic.

note the phrase "they’re either wealthy enough to get out of it, or white enough to get out of it, or male enough to get out of it,”

this is the kind of race/gender-war inciting garbage i'm talking about. just casually slipping "white" and "male" with "wealthy" is probably going to set off many peasants of the demographic. i'm also generally intolerant of the idea that blatant bigotry is A-OK when it's "punching up" against the "bad demographic."

i'm pretty sure every bigot thinks their target is the "bad demographic."

i remember waiting outside of a library as a child, being beaten until my eyes were swollen shut by people i didn't know due to this rhetoric. afterwards they claimed i used a slur and i was the one blamed for the incident. i was a poor child from an abusive and unloving home who just wanted to read a book and escape. i said nothing to these older kids, because i had no ambition to experience the treatment of strangers. i could say a lot for my privileged foster children friends also growing up being neglected and abused on a regular basis. i'm sure they have no issue accepting their privilege. although usually the response to this sarcastic point is to completely erase their personal experience or tragedy by saying "but they probably still had it better because of their demographic." i'll note that personal experience is far too variable to justifiably make such a claim.

"punching up" isn't defensible when it leads to children being attacked for no fault of their own other than the body they were born into. especially when the things that directly encourage this antagonistic mindset do not actually improve anything. there are many other personal anecdotes i could make on the topic, but i think the occurrence itself as i've presented should be obviously indefensible. unless you are a hateful monster.

i guarantee being lumped in with the asshole "elite" families that have come from privilege is a distressing experience for many not-so-privileged members of the demographic. denounced as the evil bad, enemy of progress and good, by the original sin of the body they were born into. regardless of any action, thought, intention or experience they've ever held. the less reasonable actors in the demographic will probably not find a poetic way to voice this dissatisfaction. probably furthering the cycle of shitty experiences by the innocents on either side.

we won't even get into the neurotic requirements of addressing microaggressions.

why can't we deal with the issues of bias and demographics without actively encouraging the exacerbation of racism and sexism? weren't they calling that the existential threat in the article?

again, to say openly to everyone, your experience is not everyone else's experience. your local community and experiences are not always relatable to the experience of everyone else. there is a weirdly high dimensional and abstracted nature to the experiences and interpretations of these concepts. there are billions of individuals, and almost as many different and differently sized groups of every kind. bad actors and shitty people exist on every side, and will take the leeway they are given to be abusive or hateful to whomever they see as "the enemy."

we are all human, we should all define ourselves as human, and work to mitigate the evil that is prejudice and hate without also directly encouraging it. is that really an unreasonable request?

that's my two cents anywho. please don't label me with things i disagree with or find abhorrent purely because you want to defend segregationist rhetoric.

also, fuck the rich.

This whole thread is absurd.

Chatgpt has a form of intelligence depending on your definition of intelligence. It may also be considered conscious in a very alien and undeveloped way. It is definitely not sentient.

Kind of like having the stochastic word generating part of a brain and nothing else.

You can still shape it into something capable of intelligent and directed activity.

People are really bad at accepting the level of nuance necessary for this topic.

It is useful and fantastic for what it already is. People are just really bad at understanding what it is.

Had to share a work van with one of these sort for work. I would get an hour of details on how math is just "a trick to make people believe certain things"

Also "Jews are from Saturn"

And "the chemtrails are full of microchips"

There is literally nothing you can do to sway any of their beliefs, because basic reason and logic are the enemy.

Rather, maybe we need to subvert their base instincts in a way they can turn them towards logic despite their preconceptions and inability to process basic information. Kind of like the mobile game market or unethical media companies which have free reign to influence these people for malicious self gain.

The issue is that ethical people are too upstanding to use such subversive means, which means they will ultimately lose out in our current socio-economic ecosystem

I think smart people need to fight evil with the same tools used by evil, until such tools are invalidated.

We already know we aren't allowed to use someone's likeness without permission. The issue is companies like Disney who will end up legally owning all of the likenesses. Especially if we continue to beef up copyright, they will end up owning likeness to all artistic styles. Grimes did it right with the voice tech, but even that doesn't fix the real issue.

We need to fix the system we live in that is so terrible that it makes amazing new technology seem like a negative to the larger populace. We could destroy the loom to keep people employed, but that doesn't actually help anyone. It's no coincidence that we have record profits at the same time as unreasonable price hikes. That people are overworked and struggling after fifty years of unimaginable productivity growth.

There's a mountain of propaganda defending the rich as well. If I try to search for views critical of the ones that plundered the entire world, I get bombarded with excuses and defenses for indefensible behaviors. Why are people freaking out about the tech reaching Utopian levels when the real issue is keeping the thieves from stealing every gain we have as a society?

i'm still in the melanie mitchell school of thought. if we created an A.I. advanced enough to be an actual threat, it would need the analogous style of information processing that would allow machines to easily interpret instruction. there is no reasonable incentive for it to act outside of our instruction. don't anthropomorphise it with "innate desire to keep living even at the cost of humanity or anything else." we only have that due to evolution. i do not believe in the myth of stupid super-intelligence capable of being an existential threat.

"Dr. David Ma, a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Guelph, says a person weighing 70 kilograms would have to drink about 15 cans of diet pop a day to exceed that daily limit." And don't forget all of the studies about what sugar does to your body, which people always forget about while talking about aspartame. There will be a lot of people choosing sugar over aspartame because of these headlines.