Quekid5

TBF they are quite good at finding water/shampoo containers.

I'm not sure I get your point. Can you elaborate?

We have a marvelous thing in developed countries where the IRS (equivalent) already knows how much your tax should be paying[0] and you basically have to just look at a few numbers and click "That seems right". They even have a form where you can change things that aren't correct! Marvelous, I know... we've had that for 15+ years in Denmark.

EDIT: To add, if you get it slightly wrong... you're fine, it'll be adjusted for in next year's taxes.

[0] ...because it has to, in order to investigate evasion.

> Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least).

It's the same for Magnus Carlsen. Even with Queen odds, Stockfish is literally unbeatable for the best players in the world. It's just too strong at evaluating all kinds of random tangent moves (and ensuing positional advantage) which no human player can possibly pay attention due to the time required.

Stockfish vs any human is like Carlsen vs other players by about 3-5 orders of magnitude[0]. It's that stark.

[0] A wild pun appears.

EDIT: To avoid having to respond to each responder, fair comments about Queen odds. Maybe I was thinking Rook odds? Also, I kinda lumped Stockfish in with all the other engines, but I realize there are other engines with different properties ofc.

Chess is a fun game. That's why it's been around for 1000+ years.

There was a renaissance during Covid and due to 'The Queen's Gambit' where it gained much more mainstream popularity, but... Chess AI was already far far (like 1000+ Elo) ahead of human players at that point.

The thing is... chess is humans playing (communicating) with humans and that's what keeps it interesting. Check out the view counts of chess AI tourneys vs. human tourneys.

I mean the OpenAI/HuggingFace thing was incredibly similar, except maybe more reckless than specifically intentional, I suppose. Didn't stop them milking the doomer angle for PR.

I have to I say (if it's sarcasm) that I appreciate the commitment to the bit. Unfortunately, it's getting harder and hard to tell these days...

If the whole British Post Office Scandal (Fujistu, btw) in the UK wasn't enough, nothing will be. People literally killed themselves over the accusations/convictions that were 100% false. One of the major people responsible was an Anglican Priest(!) of all people who was so sure that the Computer Is Right... [0]

We're headed for even rougher times if LLMs are going to be taken "at their word".

[0] Now, watching her testimony, it seems she was willfully complicit and it's a disgrace that she isn't in prison, but that's tangential. The "system" was responsible, but without personal accountability, nothing will change. So it goes.

That's a fair point. Ultimately, incentives are all screwy at the moment.

Gotta tie some actual prestige/shame to not following up.

Absolutely. Very happy 10+ years subscribed here and I'll keep subscribing.

(As someone pointed out in the comments, the title of this specific post could have been less heart-attack-inducing, but still... :) )

Yup, they are often just Accountability Sinks.

Not quite what you're asking, but pre-registration does alleviate e.g. p-hacking and such without the need for multiple teams. It doesn't do much for outright fraud, but still...

Exponential is also overkill (even with jitter as others have mentioned).

I seem to remember there was a "you failed 5 PIN entries in a row, please wait 500000 seconds before you retry" on Apple phones. So, you probably also want a sensible max... which makes exponential a bit pointless. Just do a basic fixed delay + (large, e.g. 0.5 x the delay) jitter and you'll be fine for most things. You can add a bit of cumulative delay if it's really costly to do retries.

LinkedIn was overtaken by LLM nonsense at about the release of ChatGPT 3... I mean it was incredibly stupid and transparent engagement slop before that, but still.

I remember talking to a business type who was so incredibly proud that GPT could turn his incredibly vapid thoughts into bland pointlessness on LinkedIn... not realizing that everyone in his feed was doing the same thing. We never did business with him for ... reasons, obviously :)