totallymike

I’m gonna need you to explain yourself. What a strange choice

I would advocate for changing the link to the primary source, rather than a reblog of Fabian Sanglard’s original work

I trust that you can use your reading comprehension skills to understand that by referring to a famous example of LLMs producing garbage, I’m simply using it to illustrate the phenomenon at large, rather than to suggest that I am still struggling to find glue-free ways to make my pizza stringier.

If you still need help breaking down what I meant in the previous post, feel free to ask. Sentences can be tricky.

On a related note, just because Gemini doesn’t tell you to put glue in your pizza anymore, by no means implies that this particular problem is solved: https://www.404media.co/it-is-trivially-easy-to-use-reddit-t...

It makes perfect sense to me. Type in a prompt like “how can I make the cheese on my pizza stringier” and maybe it’ll tell you to use different cheeses, but maybe it’ll tell you to add glue.

If you don’t like the answer, don’t worry, they’re building more data centers in poor neighborhoods so you can keep submitting the prompt until you get a better one.

It was a red flag because artificial intelligence doesn’t exist, and anyone claiming to use it or work on it is either lying or delusional in thinking they could accomplish it.

Nowadays people just say “AI” when they mean “LLM,” which is an unrelated thing entirely, but people want people who use it.

What the fuck

I couldn’t disagree with this more if I tried. The biggest benefit of the internet is to make it easier to talk to each other and share ideas. Putting financial gates in front of that ability is hot garbage.

Also, I agree that the platforms and paradigms we have are fucked up, but do believe that people who put work into making something deserve to charge for it if there are folks who’d pay.

“Objectively smarter” is the last descriptor I’d apply to software developers

I’m confused. What about the footer are you referring to?

Oh I think this lesson teaches quite a lot. Maybe your instructor is deliberately screwing up, but perhaps other end users are just not paying attention, or are missing assumed knowledge, or are feeling particularly adversarial on the day they need to follow your instructions.

One of many lessons that can be taken away from this exercise is to understand your audience and challenge the assumptions you make about their prior knowledge, culture, kind of peanut butter, et deters.

I don't think anyone is suggesting one build Linux from scratch and then use it as their primary OS.

The value of LFS is not in having the system you build, it's in understanding it. After you've read and worked through the book, you've managed to produce a functioning GNU/Linux OS, and presumably you know what all the parts are.

From there, understanding any published distribution is a matter of understanding what makes it unique, maybe a different package manager or init system, or different userland packages. Regardless, the fundamentals still stand, and your ownership of the system is improved by having worked through the book.

At Apple’s scale, the likelihood of someone pulling any weird or shady nonsense that can be imagined is not potential, it’s eventual.

A government-funded party would likely have an exploit or jailbroken firmware up and run in in days, if not sooner

Folks in the comments here begging ChatGPT to teach them how to read

BTW, one archetype that I didn't see in the simulation: Angry Affluent White Male

We redirect our AAWMness into our pedantry when we don’t want to wear it on our sleeves

This is a subtweet in blog form. Without concrete examples or critiques it isn’t any more substantial than whining about “kids these days”

Edit: I admit there are plenty of concrete critiques in the article, but if we’re supposed to stand up against slop, isn’t naming names the first step?

This feels less like changing the landscape and more like trying to stop a new neighbor from building a four-level shopping complex in front of your beach-front property while also strip-mining the forest behind.

As for whether the Times should be developing their own LLM bot, why on earth would they want that?

jfc thank you for the context

I can’t tell if you’re being satirical or not…

They are still considered a paper of record, but I chose to use a hypothetical outfit because I don’t love the Times myself but I believe the argument to be valid.

I’m not interested in arguing about whether or not they deserve to fail, because that whole discussion is orthogonal to whether OpenAI is in the wrong.

If I’m on my deathbed, and somebody tries to smother me, I still hope they face consequences

I'm not a fan of NYT either, but this feels like you're stretching for your conclusion:

They hired "experts" who used prompt engineering and thousands of repetitions to find highly unusual and specific methods of eliciting text from training data that matched their articles....would have been the end of the situation if NYT was engaging in good faith.

I mean, if I was performing a bunch of investigative work and my publication was considered the source of truth in a great deal of journalistic effort and publication of information, and somebody just stole my newspaper off the back of a delivery truck every day and started rewriting my articles, and then suddenly nobody read my paper anymore because they could just ask chatgpt for free, that's a loss for everyone, right?

Even if I disagree with how they editorialize, the Times still does a hell of a lot of journalism, and chatgpt can never, and will never be able to actually do journalism.

they want to insert themselves as middlemen - pure rent seeking, second hander, sleazy lawyer behavior

I'd love to hear exactly what you mean by this.

Between what and what are they trying to insert themselves as middlemen, and why is chatgpt the victim in their attempts to do it?

What does 'rent seeking' mean in this context?

What does 'second hander' mean?

I'm guessing that 'sleazy lawyer' is added as an intensifier, but I'm curious if it means something more specific than that as well, I suppose.

Copyright law....the rest of it

Yeah. IP rights and laws are fucked basically everywhere. I'm not smart enough to think of ways to fix it, though. If you've got some viable ideas, let's go fix it. Until then, the Times kinda need to work with what we've got. Otherwise, OpenAI is going to keep taking their lunch money, along with every other journalist's on the internet, until there's no lunch money to be had from anyone.

1-5: not a concern

It'll be the lawyers who need to go through the data, and given the scale of it, they won't be able to do anything more than trawl for the evidence they need and find specific examples to cite. They don't give a shit if you're asking chatgpt how to put a hit out on your ex, and they're not there to editorialize.

I wont pretend to guess* how they'll perform the discovery, but I highly doubt it will result in humans reading more than a handful of the records in total outside of the ones found via whatever method they automate the discovery process.

If there's top secret information in there, and it was somehow stumbled upon by one of these lawyers or a paralegal somewhere, I find it impossibly unlikely they'd be stupid enough to do anything other than run directly to whomever is the rightful possessor of said information and say "hey we found this in this place it shouldn't be" and then let them deal with it. Which is what we'd want them to do.

*Though if I had to speculate on how they'd do it, I do think the funniest way would be to feed the records back into chatgpt and ask it to point out all the times the records show evidence of infringement

It sounds like the alternate path you're suggesting is for NYT to stop being wrong and let OpenAI continue being right, which doesn't sound much like a compromise to me.

prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users

I'm confused by this phrase. I may be misreading but it sounds like you're frustrated, or at least cynical about NYT wanting to preserve their business model of writing about things that happen and selling the publication. To me it seems reasonable they'd want to keep doing that, and to protect their content from being stolen.

They certainly aren't the sole publication of written content about current events, so calling them "the middle-man between events and users" feels a bit strange.

If your concern is that they're trying to prevent OpenAI from getting a foot in the door of journalism, that confuses me even more. There are so, so many sources of news: other news agencies, independent journalists, randos spreading word-of-mouth information.

It is impossible for chatgpt to take over any aspect of being a "middle-man between events and users" because it can't tell you the news. it can only resynthesize journalism that it's stolen from somewhere else, and without stealing from others, it would be worse than the least reliable of the above sources. How could it ever be anything else?

This right here feels like probably a good understanding of why NYT wants openai to keep their gross little paws off their content. If I stole a newspaper off the back of a truck, and then turned around and charged $200 a month for the service of plagiarizing it to my customers, I would not be surprised if the Times's finest lawyers knocked on my door either.

Then again, I may be misinterpreting what you said. I tend to side with people who sue LLM companies for gobbling up all their work and regurgitating it, and spend zero effort trying to avoid that bias

I mean, why do people like doing those wine and painting evenings, even if they’re all going home with similar paintings? Why do people perform at recitals when they’re performing music that already exists? Why do people share any art, even if it’s not guaranteed to be the most original, profound, or technically proficient expression of creative intent?

Sometimes it’s fun to just enjoy something, and to share that you enjoyed it. These pictures aren’t here to impress anyone, they’re here because each one is a record of someone who had a bit of fun decorating their laptop, and an invitation to share in the fun. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.

All people who make lazy and baseless generalizations are boring and a waste of time to listen to. This is fun, we should do it more often

Read the manual of your washer. I’m willing to bet it instructs you to run the tap until it’s hot before you start the dishwasher. This is common for American dishwashers, because they can’t get the water hot enough, fast enough, for the prewash cycle

I can’t speak to Australian dishwashers, but trying to skip the video by catching a summary has failed you. Heating is discussed extensively in the video

He does mention that a number of manufacturers aren’t making powders at all anymore, and also suspects out loud that they just aren’t trying with their powder detergents anymore, or are not bothering to apply improvements to their formulae to the powder form because manufacturers would rather sell the powders anyway.

He also specifically calls out Great Value brand powder as one he finds to be consistently on par with pod performance

What your manual says is common to most dishwashers.

You can tell if your dishwasher has a pre-wash cycle if it does a short run, then you hear it draining, and then it does a longer full run. I expect it probably does.

Also, you can always add a bit of detergent to the main compartment of the dishwasher for prewash. The normal detergent compartment has a lid so the the detergent stays dry until the main wash cycle, and most prewash compartments are just an open tray.

Come to think of it, if there is a latching door on the detergent tray, your dishwasher definitely has a prewash cycle, or else they’d skip the door entirely