you have to be very careful quoting those sources that are based on incorrect data. One might have three jobs and make 5 times less than it used to be. It's a rabbit hole that needs its own thorough research.
I think the CSS they use (which isn't much) is good enough (and "img{max-width:100%}" really ought to be the default setting even if the user disables CSS).
I hope OpenAI will prove its usefulness in stealing joy from mathematicians, engineers, and biologists this time. It feels like there's a chance of warmer feedback this time from everyone out there keeping an eye on what they do.
Personally I would forgive all of the joy being stolen by AI if they discover something fundamental and outstanding that would help all of us.
> stealing joy from mathematicians, engineers, and biologists
This is the weakest possible rationalization against the AI takeover. Solving real world problems isn’t “stealing joy”. Those problems shouldn’t be gatekept. It paints our scientists as rent seekers.
This comment totally misunderstands why scientists get into science. Let me tell you, it isn't the money. It is for the joy of exploring the frontier. LLM's are taking this from us. Maybe they will be better than us but I'm not sure how many scientists will get into science for the joy of being an understudy to an LLM.
Yes, exploration is exactly why I enjoy research. Knowledge is, after all, the final frontier.
(Space is NOT the final frontier; sorry Trekkies. The real barrier to space is the ability to traverse non-trivial expanses of space in human time, and that will only be solved by Science.)
And when it comes to AI in research, we have just been handed a relativistic starship to explore the boundaries of our knowledge, instead of the paddle boats we've been using all this time. I would choose to adapt and try to harness this new power rather than mourn the loss of paddling.
If you could press a button and obliterate the joy experienced by every professional at their work, in exchange for a 1% boost in marginal productivity for the next 2 quarters, would you do it?
More to the point, what if the button gives a 10% quarterly boost in productivity for the next 100 quarters. But 80% of the professionals get fired and the other 20% have harder jobs that feel more managerial. Then, yeah I would press it.
Whatever it is, it can’t involve artificially constraining LLMs or technological progress. If the vast majority of the population loses their job, the only real solutions are some form of UBI or some sort of tax on the output of robots and LLMs.
By the time we know the secrets of the universe, the concept of "jobs" would be an ancient, vestigial footnote in our evolutionary history. I mean, if I knew the secret to faster-than-light travel I'd not be hunched over here pecking away at computers! ;-)
In fact, I suspect most of the "jobs" left eventually would be around extracting those secrets out of the universe and making them work for humanity. Which is probably a much better use of human intellect than pretty much anything we do today.
That may be the future we want to end up in, but we'll only get there eventually. Unfortunately, in today's world we neither know the secrets of the universe nor can we survive without jobs. So until society reorients itself towards that future, we are going to have a lot of upheaval.
You already know about DNA, black holes, and the precise age of the universe, yet you still have a job. Do you think that would change if we knew more?
Nobody is going to pay human rates to do the stuff that AI can do for much cheaper either! The quip about jobs being vestigial was also a tongue-in-cheek indication that Economics as we know now also will not apply.
This leaves only one area for humans to expand into: towards the things machines cannot do, which often involve things that neither humans or machines currently understand.
Fortunately, that's basically everything. We know about black holes, but we still don't know enough to figure out FTL travel. We know DNA but we don't know enough to cure cancer, let alone how to reverse aging. We know a negligible fraction of the secrets of the universe, and it would be a much better use of human intellect to figure those out than filling out TPS reports.
Unfortunately, current society is not set up for that future -- essentially where everybody is either a scientist or an artist, both historically terribly-paying jobs requiring a very specific mindset and an appetite for abject uncertainty -- and that's where the upheaval happens.
Nonsense. I agree with the GP. Human labor needs to be rendered obsolete as quickly and completely as possible so we can move towards a new paradigm whatever that is. If that’s wars so be it. It could just as easily be a step towards a utopia. We need to accelerate whatever is happening here.
I keep hearing these analogies to "rent seekers" - particularly with mathematics.
I just don't understand it. No mathematician would be upset if a total amateur solves a centuries old problem - even one they've worked their whole life on. They cheer and celebrate it.
I understood them to be arguing that AI models are taking away the joy of certain things like mathematics but not producing commensurate value for humanity. We have a lower bound on twin primes, but that doesn't improve life for anybody, and the cost of getting the bound was removing human involvement from a lot of mathematical research, which was a source of joy for some portion of the human race. If all of this leads to curing major diseases without an AI takeover, it will have been worth it. But if it doesn't, then the ends don't necessarily justify the means.
> Solving real world problems isn’t “stealing joy”
Well, pretty good amount of the training data was stolen. Not only from the repositories without a license, but also archives of books, and they even steal training from each other. Funny enough, they still blame each other for stealing. I don't mind if you think your joy is not stolen. But I mind if you insist when your opinion is the only right one and joy has definitely not been stolen. It's quite sensitive territory starts here, and I don't think anyone (incl.yourself) has a right to speak for everyone in that regard.
“AI shouldn’t make groundbreaking advancements because the scientists who otherwise wanted to make those advancements feel sad”.
All those scientists can go pound sand as far as I am concerned. I don’t give a shit about “joy” I care about curing diseases and solving the universe’s mysteries. If AI can get us there faster then I’m 100% for it.
Solving the universe's mysteries is over thing, and if this really was about just the researchers' feelings then your perspective would be the valid one.
However, we live under capitalism. People also need to have their careers to be able to afford the goods and services to keep themselves alive. So unless AI causes a radical -- some might even call it revolutionary -- reconfiguration in the way our societies work, putting people out of work is just cruel and the gleeful commentary around that is just more salt in the wound.
Are you ready to fight for the AI to seize the means of production for the betterment of all humanity or at the very least enable us to have proper universal basic income? Because just disrupting every industry to make humans obsolete without a plan will just result in that happening anyway, just with more misery and conflict.
It's definitely a great language to have fun with. I enjoyed writing the book. Moreover, I wrote it for my son who was 5 years old back then, in hopes it will be useful over time, pretty much like books about bash/sh were useful for decades.
I still remember those days I was working on my book to and from work. Those memories and dreams are priceless.
I haven't updated the book intentionally to keep the "Last updated on 2022-05-26". Was it the last Ruby book written without AI?
I don't wanna be a jerk, but it's another proof that Tetris success was accidental. All other games are beyond suboptimal. Also interesting how one random success could define a man's future, career, happiness, money, etc.
Even the biggest bands only have 5% of their songs be huge hits. For any creative endeavor you're going to have some whiffs. The ratio of whiffs to hits probably depends on the nature of the medium.
Did you watch the entire 2 hour video to be able to say this? Which of these games did you actually play? The statement just seems totally unjustified.
The Yandex of today isn't exactly the Yandex of 2020. The people who were at the helm back then whitewashed their reputations, renamed to Nebius, and are now supplying compute to Palantir.
> I do think AI is going to change computer programming. Not as dramatically...
Well, academia is the last industry that is going to change.
People pay for education regardless of how employable they're in the end. So the whole field is pretty much detached from the rest of the world. They're not interested in change, it would undermine their job security.
My employment has been terminated multiple times in the past. I _had to_ change. There is no other way to be marketable.
Academia is not that. Their business is to fill you up with obsolete tech and take your money. Don't trust them.
Professors will be the last to admit their skill set is outdated. Those folks and academia in general aren't outcome-driven. They don't care if students will be ever able to find a job or not. They just want to educate like they got used to, and want their money. Or is it me being jealous? I had to change. Change a lot, learn a lot in last couple of years. But what about those folks who still use Borland compiler? I can imagine they're comfortable in academia, and can be in the next 10 or even 20 years - depends on how aggressive they're defending their old-world principles.
you have to be very careful quoting those sources that are based on incorrect data. One might have three jobs and make 5 times less than it used to be. It's a rabbit hole that needs its own thorough research.
reply