Mali-

Do you disagree that the advice is true? Your comment is not relevant to the quote.

"We absolutely understand why it works, if we didn't understand we would not be able to improve these systems" - Understanding how to improve something does not require understanding how it works.

Growing a plant does not imply understanding soil minerals or photosynthesis. Training a dog does not imply understanding it's brain. Using LLMs to improve a codebase does not imply understanding C++. Improving a PC with new parts, does not imply understanding RAM.

You can understand abstractions about the system, without understanding the system. Without gradient descent or other forms of automatic optimisation, do you think humans could build something as capable as GPT-1?

This is discussed at the bottom of the article: "Menopause: Humans, killer whales, pilot whales, beluga whales, false killer whales, narwhals one group of chimps in Uganda. No menopause: Everything else"

So, monkeys and apes (besides one species of chimps) don't get menopause, elephants don't get menopause, lions don't get menopause. If your prediction is, social animal => menopause, it's wrong 99% of the time.

By your argument, I should be able to directly copy a book and sell it myself. The work was already done! What's more, they were fed by everyone's creativity, so of course I should be able to sell an exact copy.

In reality, the short-sighted greed is allowing widespread theft of intellectual property; do you think the number of writers would increase or decrease if there were no protections against content theft?

If you have such "immense gratitude", pay for the work.

They impersonated the moderator of the site and attempted XSS attacks. Additionally, when the moderator started deleting messages, they tried to hide their messages later in the alphabetical index.

This is not alignment.

Nothing to see here. Just billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public to jailbreak and use. This could never effect us, not really our business.

People think AI is a bad editor (I personally don't), here's your argument under a particularly harsh version of that framing:

Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was done by my 13 year old nephew is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand

Obviously, this doesn't work because the content is changing. Printing a piece vs writing it by hand doesn't change the content, only the medium of transmission.

If your battery is replaceable, you can still decide to throw the phone away and add to the pile of e-waste. The legislation allows both choices, at the cost of higher prices.

This comment is every policy discussion. I like [X POLICY] but [Y POLICY] would be miles better. Although [Y POLICY] is much further reaching and has never been tried at anything like the scale of a country, it's sort of similar to [Z POLICY] - which was tried for 2 years.

You know exactly what is meant. I don't think we need the long disclaimer at the beginning about the inefficiency of the English language in this domain and the extreme likelihood that it has no qualia. We're talking about the observed behaviour of these systems (even the word "behaviour" is fraught!) in a way that's natural.

Maybe global warming should be up there.

Perhaps they were trying to avoid any possible misunderstanding/misconstrual (there are misinformed people who don't believe in global warming).

In terms of avoiding all nitpicking, I think everyone that's not criminally insane believes in pandemics and nuclear bombs.

Global warming's worst effects aren't in 2-3 years, but we all (I hope) still care very much about it.

Perhaps the article is wrong about the timescale, but given how much AI has improved in the last 5 years, can you agree that it's likely to reach 'sit back and watch' levels in the next 5-10 years?

I imagine a peasant of old moving from bartering to coins would 'like' money - would that be allowed by this author or be too gauche?