The big claim is that R1 was trained on far less computing power than OpenAI’s models at a fraction of the cost.

And people believe this ... why? I mean, shouldn't the default assumption about anything anyone in AI says is that it's a lie?

From the "flipping through LessWrong for entertainment" department:

What effect does LLM use have on the quality of people's thinking / knowledge?

• I'd expect a large positive effect from just making people more informed / enabling them to interpret things correctly / pointing out fallacies etc.

First reaction: "Wait, that was in Nature?"

Second reaction: "Oh, Nature Scientific Reports. The 'we have Nature at home' of science journals."

Among many insights, Davis (politely) points out that one of the AI-generated Chaucer poems is just "the opening of the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales."

Whan that Aprille with the fuck?

"Consider it from the perspective of someone who does not exist and therefore has no preferences. Who would they pick?"

Breaking news: "AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably"!

Or, you know, not.

"I have been unfailingly polite, and [your lemmy instance has] been nothing but rude."

Max Tegmark has taken a break from funding neo-Nazi media to blather about Artificial General Intelligence.

As humanity gets closer to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

The first clause of the opening line, and we've already hit a "citation needed".

He goes from there to taking a prediction market seriously. And that Aschenbrenner guy who thinks that Minecraft speedruns are evidence that AI will revolutionize "science, technology, and the economy".

You know, ten or fifteen years ago, I would have disagreed with Tegmark about all sorts of things, but I would have granted him default respect for being a scientist.

From the Chronicle of Higher Ed story:

For this year’s ICLR, Guha, the Northeastern computer scientist, turned in a study about how successfully large language models can write code when used by students with little programming experience. Conceptualizing and designing the experiment, running it on dozens of undergraduates across three colleges, and writing up the results took him and his team more than two years. Last fall, he got back four anonymous reviews, including the one complimenting his “lucid narrative.” It declared, too, that “this paper heralds a new dawn for the LLM community” and the analysis was “rendered in an approachable fashion, ensuring it is digestible for a broad readership.”

"We spent more than two years normalizing the eating of faces by leopards, but we never imagined that the leopards would eat our faces!"

Russo acknowledged that he uses generative AI to help him write reviews — emphasis on help. He said that he always reads the paper and writes his own response, but occasionally asks ChatGPT to analyze it and come up with counterarguments for him to consider incorporating. Similarly, other scientists said that they value the tool for its ability to distill technical concepts and suggest relevant research to cite.

I'm sorry, but this is just morally bankrupt. "Our process is only powered by a forsaken child during the intermediate stages. The final product is completely orphan-free by weight."

J, K. Rowling, skull enthusiast:

Khelif, who went on to win Olympic gold despite the harassment, reportedly filed a lawsuit alleging cyberbullying against Rowling (Elon Musk is also named in the suit). Shortly after the lawsuit became public on August 13, Rowling went silent on X, leading to speculation from many onlookers that she had pushed her transphobic narrative too far. On August 23, though, she again appeared on the platform, spreading more false and misleading commentary on Khelif. Her first post was a quote from a transphobic hit piece against Khelif by Colin Wright, the former managing editor of the far-right website Quillette.

First, learn the difference between scorn or disdain and hate.

Second, read the comments in the thread already made about those "'sort of' correct" predictions.

(thinks)

Cum Jabbar

Oh look, a clarification:

It didn't even occur to me that anyone would read the tweet as being about "25% more general market value" rather than "25% more value to me personally". Who thinks like that??!?

Yud is just a uwu neuro-atypical smol bean who is ignorant of generations of cultural context about people rating each other and cannot be blamed for people reading his words in the wrong way instead of the correct, equally repellent way.