avs733

Well in normal countries…firing them for something they did outside work. In American vernacular, something something free speech.

>This stop and interrogate shit shouldn't be legal.

I've started to call nonsense like this 'illegal but allowed by courts'

We can all read the constitution and our laws. We've been told the legal system tells us what they mean, but increasingly, the explanations we are provided and the decisions that are made seem at odds with the basic. Things like parallel construction, the good faith exception, and pretextual stops makes a mockery of people's rights and the ability of the justice system to even evaluate police conduct.

Theres a spectrum in here between soverign citizens and serious citizen pushback on legal overreach...but its a spectrum increasingly worth reflecting on. Obviously this is US specific.

This is the most likely…they just flipped a setting flag that was causing an unintended conflict.

That’s not correct.

The standardized ecu was introduced as a cost savings and fairness measure in 2008. The contract was won by McLaren Applied (which was part of the same McLaren that is the current reigning champion but is now spun off and owned by private equity).

The teams basically get an sdk and are largely responsible for the software the cars run at pretty much everything above the hardware layer of abstraction.

As a weird piece of history, McLaren applied was not the original winner of the contract for the first standardized ecu in 2008. When it was announced, in 2006, Microsoft was.

given the percentage of business processes that still run on a manually updated spreadsheet, I am not sure that is actually worse.

It is likely better in some ways and worse in others...and few of hte people involved will have the understanding to tell the difference.

The Youtube channel Numberphile released a video yesterday with an ~45min interview with Tristan Buckmaster about the Navier Stokes solution, controversy, and all the topics in between. Their description is:

Tristan Buckmaster speaks about his role in the controversial Navier-Stokes solution. We are seeking an interview with OpenAI too. ... Since the video was finalised and uploaded, we have heard back from OpenAI and we're trying to schedule an interview. If we're successful, it will be uploaded ASAP and linked here.

Yeah I had some fun and the number of things that trigger the guardrail response are vast.

I teach college… you rent wrong on what they output, you are wrong on the inference drawn from it.

On a regular basis I have students bring me “machine learning” models they have trained, which sounds great. But they have no idea what problem they are solving, what data they have or should have, and no idea why that method, etc. There is no understanding. They use words and concepts from a broad variety of fields, with confidence, but with little deep understanding. The Internet and AI give access to knowledge which is necessary but not sufficient for wisdom.

While K-12 bears a lot of blame (as a system not “teachers”) I’ve come to believe the problem is more societal. What we value and what kids logically perceive will be them ahead in life. If all they ever see is that surface level performance of knowledge is enough…why bother with more?

Can't and shouldn't are at odds here.

Many people, see prior conversation on HN, have already decided that AI solved it. The standards of reasoning and rigor in academia are complex enough that we all argue over them and harumph as we epistemically trespass on each other's domains.

The public, really humans if care for Herbert Simon, are much more apt to evaluate knowledge emotionally and by other standards. We may see them as wrong but standards only matter in context. The NYT, HN, and Annals of Mathematics will always have different standards of truth.

To me it’s telling that the screen shot he posted doesn’t really support any of what he says in the post and the screenshot doesn’t contradict the other sides claims

If you believe the totality of the document, there was more shadiness in how OpenAI acted than just timing. Save other things they are accused of, the progression from rumors to replication would attract much less scrutiny. With those in mind timing begins to look suspicious at best.

Would anyone be surprised if major model companies had tagged the accounts of competitor employees for extra tracking? Given the concerns about distillation and bench marking it hardly seems irrational, but how it is used matters quite a lot.

In the academic world it would still be deeply problematic…pick your preferred word.

An analogy is akin to reviewing a paper. If I review a paper with some novel findings and then use my massive lab of graduate students to do the obvious next step before the other paper makes it through type setting and then shove it out as a pre print, I didn’t win - I was a jerk.

There are lots of cases of people using peer review or other accesss to efectively forerun others work and get credit. It’s a known problem of the nature of knowledge validation in academia, it’s not solved and it’s not deterministic but people know it when they see it.