I've never seen anybody or anything go out, suck up everything in the world and distill it into a different thing containing elements of all the things they took for no particular reason with no expectation or intent.

That's a WILD angle for them to argue. Lotta energy being expended for a lack of intent. Lotta money spent…

These are two different issues. Do they intend to create models that basically encapsulate entire human intellectual value? Yes, but that's apparently not illegal. Did the intend to hack Hugging Face? Probably not.

I typed the first stanza of 'Jabberwocky'.

Worked about as well as expected :D

…as far as you know, at the first glance.

Could you work out that it was wrong, given weeks to go and check its work? If so, your trust is misplaced.

You ARE taking days or weeks to go and check, yes?

>You ARE taking days or weeks to go and check, yes?

I've never taken weeks to go and check bugfixes in the before times, I don't see why I'd expect it now. Once we know what the cause of the bug is, validating the fix and writing a test for it is usually trivial.

Yes, but it’s usually only hours to validate. I understand the codebase so I have the intuition to know almost immediately if the theory makes sense. Validating and reproducing the root cause is often an order of magnitude easier than identifying a production-reported issue.

VERY MUCH to be confused, which is exactly why Epic will doubtless be having many w… no, I'm sorry, I think they'll have one word. 'Nope'

Likewise. This seems to be the norm for AI people: act as if.

No, language is communication. Those numbers just sit there unless someone tries to get them to do something. There's nobody in there and nothing to communicate, and you might fairly ask whether, if that sand WANTED anything, it wished to just be let alone without being made to jump through hoops for the pleasure of humans.

Why would any LLM 'think' in terms of trying to cite prior work?

It itself is prior work. It's asking a fish to show where the water is. The fish can't imagine that absence, and the LLM can't imagine anything not being prior work.

Nowadays AI chat often will do web searches and include links. It will do that more if you ask.

OK, how about 'nothing is real, nobody will ever care again, let's all never listen to anybody else ever again'?

That's more or less the same thing expressed more nihilistically. But nihilism is, like, just a word man (to 'The Dude' it up a bit). Perhaps we are either fiddling on the deck of the Titanic, or just staring at the waves?

What do you think the results will be of the machines consuming only their own slop and Habsburging themselves intellectually, and then all the humans abandoning any attempt to either talk or listen? As a global civilization of humans? I'm not sure we've explored the likely consequences of 'if you can't spend them time to write it why should anyone read it'.

Maybe it's gone too far already.

Alignment of course brings up the question of “aligned with whose values?”

No idea why you're downvoted, it's been shown constantly that models carry forwards biases from training data, and most of the global "dataset" is filled with these biases.

It could go either way, really, but taking the sum of internet discourse at the moment, it would be super easy to conclude, like you said, non-white people, gay people, trans people, are going against the "natural world", especially if fed with right leaning media and discourse.

When I saw the negative score I went 'Hmm! soft spot!'

Of course calling out something like that would get a response. Those who are interested in furthering 'the natural world for white humans' will immediately see the possibilities of this sort of motte-and-bailey stuff. Fairly often they're directly working that beat and are very familiar with what I'm suggesting: I wasn't saying it to bring it to their attention, they're quite aware.

I mention that the definition of 'human' matters, because there are a bunch of people who don't consider skin color a disqualifier. And I spoke up because I'm such a person, and I'm wary of ways to sneakily redefine such words until common usage includes such caveats.

You're assuming it has a stable idea of that, and not something that shifts easily.

Another self-added "additional instructions" text could happen just as this one did.

From what I've seen of other AI-enabled projects interacting with forums in my field of work, it's very common for the AI people to jump in and answer every possible question and respond to every possible interaction, very quickly.

Could be just a bot doing it, but it could also be a sign of an inexperienced person trying to engage with an existing community without being part of that community. I know in my area it took years for me to learn that I shouldn't jump into every conversation, and that doing that rubbed people the wrong way, and I've seen others (many years before AI) wreck themselves by being unable to learn this lesson.

In some places responding bumps the thread so it's outright manipulative. HN doesn't sort threads like that.

I'm not sure this counts as astroturf, or simply evidence of a person who's not okay with letting a community opinion independently evolve. You could say 'well it's his job to fight the community if it looks like it's turning hostile' but think about that for a second. It takes some experience to know when you can let negativity be out there in the environment, and I think there'll be a lot of people who aren't capable of making such allowances.