lewhoo

1 person billion dollar company - the new buzz phrase when "democratize" became so yesterday is in my opinion just that.

"Now the only reason why I won't post this as an arxiv note, is that the humans actually beat gpt-5 to the punch :-). Namely the arxiv paper has a v2 arxiv.org/pdf/2503.10138v2 with an additional author and they closed the gap completely, showing that 1.75/L is the tight bound."

I really don't know what to make of this. The conclusion is that a model could still do this without the paper containing the exact info on how to do this ?

But I can complain about what happens to said something. If my blog photo becomes deep fake porn am I allowed to complain or not ? What we have is an entirely novel situation (with ai) worth at least a serious discussion.

a calculator to check her math homework

Change 'check' to 'do' and we'll have a discussion.

There was a time when in the name of progress people were killed for whatever resources they possessed, others were enslaved etc. and I was under the impression that the measure of our civilization is that we actually DID care and just how much. It seems to me that you are very eager to put up altars of sacrifice without even thinking that the problems you probably have in mind are perfectly solvable without them.

Sure, there will be growing pains, friction, etc. Who cares?

That's right. Who cares about pains of others and why they even should are absolutely words to live by.

One of the biggest factors in risk of death right now is poverty. Also what is being chased right now is "human level on most economically viable tasks" because the automated research for solving physics etc. even now seems far-fetched.

Apparently the biggest mistake they made is to criticize Trump for Jan 6. It's ok, they apologized for that.

Well I don't know. A bit naive, a bit like sci-fi and aimed at raising money fits my description of bs quite well.

So it's bs but for money and therefore totally fine ? I think it's not ok if only a fraction comes true because some people believe in those things and act on those beliefs right now.

I got 185 from 4o mini https://chatgpt.com/share/670987da-6e70-800b-b5a6-f8548fda6b...

Yet in the face of this we still see a population of naysayers who appear intent on rubbishing LLMs at any cost.

What was the cost in this case ? It's just an experiment and I think your reaction is way too emotional for some reason.

Those certainly were the catchy headlines. Here's an interesting article:

https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-reveals-why-ai-analyzed-medi...

“We found that even state-of-the-art models which are optimally performant in data similar to their training sets are not optimal — that is, they do not make the best trade-off between overall and subgroup performance — in novel settings,” Ghassemi says. “Unfortunately, this is actually how a model is likely to be deployed. Most models are trained and validated with data from one hospital, or one source, and then deployed widely.”

I actually agree with you. I was a bit sarcastic. If I understand correctly there isn't a fundamental difference when it comes to text output vs pixel data output in this context. If so then it suddenly sounds much more of a stretch (intuitively) to claim that somehow stable diffusion understands the real world (like people claim to be the case with language models).

What ? Stable diffusion doesn't have an underlying understanding that humans typically have two arms, two hands and five fingers per hand gathered from vast sea of training data ? That's a bold statement.

With 3.6B people in the workforce I'd argue there isn't a billion people in need of a computer, not to mention an ai subscription plan. I'm of course assuming most subscriptions for ai are work related.

I think what Suleyman is missing here is that most people aren't fine with their "TVs, laptops, in-car cameras and earbuds" recording everything continuously.

I really hope so but I'm not so sure. I suspect most people are fine with anything that isn't obviously intrusive. I sometimes get the feeling that people are more upset with cookie popups than constant invigilation.

And yet this is precisely what people like Altman say about their product. That's pretty tiring.

I'm with you there. I'm just not holding my breath for the current state of law.

It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions. I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns

I thought so for a moment but then again Meta, Anthropic (I just checked and they have a "for profit and public benefit" status whatever that means), Google or that Musk's thing aren't non-profits, are they ? There are lawsuits in motion for sure but with how it stands today I think ai gets off the hook.

I don't think that's a good example. People with Alzheimer's have, to put it simply, damaged memory, but not complete lack of. We're talking about a situation where a person wouldn't be even conscious of being a human/person unless they were told so as part of the current context window. Right ?

I wonder if those responses could already be influenced by the fact that the cutoff for some of the models out there was indeed 2023 and people wrote about it all over the internet.

Yes but this was just to make a blatant example. The questions still stands. If you feed a LLM certain kind of data is it possible it strays from it completely - like we sometimes do in cases big and small when we figure out how to do something a bit better by not following the convention.

This is truly the new model's answer ? It's pretty similar to 3.5's "reasoning" actually:

In this context, "3.10" and "3.11" should be interpreted as decimal numbers, not as numbers with more digits.

When comparing:

3.9 3.10 (which is equal to 3.1) 3.11 (which is equal to 3.11) We have:

3.9 is greater than 3.1 (3.10), because 9 is larger than 1. 3.11 is greater than 3.9, because 11 is larger than 9. Thus, 3.11 is the largest of the three numbers.

which parts of intelligence do you think are not representable as conditional probability distributions

Maybe I'm wrong here but a lot of our brilliance comes from acting against the statistical consensus. What I mean is, Nicolaus Copernicus probably consumed a lot of knowledge on how the Earth is the center of the universe etc. and probably nothing contradicting that notion. Can a LLM do that ?

Yes but the success of BYD also comes from big government subsidies. I'm aware that Tesla also received government money but what China is doing is unfair trade (at least that's the justification for tariffs). Also it's not like there's no competition. A Hyundai Inster costs 27000$ while a BYD c-segment atto 3 goes for 44172$. The BYD is a better car but not by that much imho.

Information on openai changes quickly and is very unreliable, but:

https://www.maginative.com/article/openais-annualized-revenu...

This site says 3.2B of that comes from subscriptions. Omitting usage via API and assuming 1 user = 240$ annually that makes 133.3 million subscriptions.

https://backlinko.com/chatgpt-stats (says Jun. 04, 2024 but this might be outdated a bit more)

Here it says openai has roughly 3.9 million subs in USA. On that basis I would assume roughly 8 million in Europe. Even if we add India and China(but they don't operate in China currently from what I gather) with numbers raised linearly along their population this doesn't add up. Maybe they rake in a lot via their enterprise plans or am I dumb and missing something ?

The movement of the player seems jittery a bit so I inferred something similar on that basis.

From what I understand that could make the engine much less stable. The key here is repetitiveness.

Why exactly is it insane ? To reliably differentiate (let's assume it's possible for the sake of argument) between "you made this" and "you didn't make this" or at least "a human made this" seems to carry mostly (if not only) benefits.