cloakandswagger

I had Claude analyze a blood panel and provide potential diagnoses, medications, dosing and contraindications for a fairly esoteric condition. It gave me the questions to ask a doctor (being completely forthright that I'm yet another layman regurgitating AI output) who agreed with the approach and even admitted that he hadn't seen a case study it referenced but that he wish he knew about sooner.

Will doctors still be assmad that years of their study is now democratized? Probably. I am (or was) a software engineer, welcome to the club.

The prompts were, predictably, really bad. Broken English, sentence fragments, vague requests, lack of context. Yet somehow, the users always got the answer they were looking for. It might have taken a few extra turns with questions from the model, but the end result was the same.

It's humbling, but a flowery, carefully crafted prompt is at best slightly more efficient than a "CAN A DOG BE EATIN SUN FLOWER SEED?" peasant prompt.

Those were mostly obviated by reasoning models and harness updates by 2024.

It seems pointless to invest energy into the latest/greatest AI technique or framework when they're going to either be absorbed or replaced on a 3 month cycle.

The globalists of old would happily hand AI dominance to China in exchange for a decade or two of short-term gains. The fact that protectionist measures are even being considered shows that the globalists who sold out manufacturing to China aren't at the wheel anymore.

Look at how online poker was "banned" in 2011. It was and always has been legal to play online poker in the US, they just made it illegal to accept wire payments for online gambling which destroyed the American market for it.

So many comments in this thread miss the point; an American "ban" on Chinese open-weights is not aiming to make individual usage impossible and wouldn't be accomplished by throwing people in jail. The point is to make their usage difficult and uncertain enough that large companies will opt for American alternatives.

Do you mean "the weight parameters you have access to[sic]" or do you frequently find yourself limited by the model's token vocabulary?

Similarly he thinks that an investment into an AI startup is also a loan that the startup needs to pay back out of their own revenue, instead of a share of a company that will IPO at a higher valuation.

Basically his doomerism is a byproduct of financial illiteracy.

Note that this can cause issues: say you have a time sensitive application that receives a batch of "bad" messages which cause failed lambda invocations. The poller will slow down and the throughput will drop drastically, even though your intention might be for the lambda to continue processing at the same rate and power through the bad messages.

This behavior can be disabled with a support request.

There is no "voting" and no "leader" except in the most abstract sense and I'm not sure why you're so determined to use those terms.

By simple you mean, dishonest?

People aren't as dumb as our betters believe. They pick up on obvious lies ("stop buying masks" => "everyone must wear a mask"), dishonesty ("ivermectin is for animals") and inconsistencies that fly in the face of intuition ("even if you had covid you still need the vaccination").

If the powers that be would stop trying to "shape human behavior" through lying we wouldn't see nearly the same level of vaccine hesitance and alternative medicine we do right now.