emp17344

Spoken like someone who read “Bullshit Jobs” once and mistook it for economic gospel.

I don’t hate it. I just hate the cult-like enthusiasm for it and the associated false claims. Again, your isolated anecdote does not trump the carefully compiled data presented in this post.

Didn’t we just get a bunch of data from Anthropic’s IPO showing that inference is not, in fact, profitable? People are still spouting this?

Isolated anecdotes are all they have, because the actual data shows they’re full of shit. Hence, this post.

Emergence within LLMs is pretty much unproven, and this seems like pretty strong evidence that nothing is really “emerging” here.

Many, many people here have already been sucked into the TESCREAL orbit, and have a quasi-religious belief that AI will be the most important thing to ever happen. Anything that challenges that stance is anathema.

In practice, hallucinations have only mitigated within verifiable domains. The vast, vast majority of human activity is unverifiable, or at least significantly less verifiable than mathematics.

Oh, well if notorious liar Sam Altman and his company notorious for lying says so…

No we’re annoyed because people like you are pretending AI is far more capable than it actually currently is and then acting smug about it.

Seems like a terrible idea in the first place to build an entire organization around a single pop-sci book, but that’s just me.

Or you could just accept that other people disagree with you. It’s perfectly valid to have the opinion that AI models are not “thinking”. Instead, many AI enthusiasts seem interested in browbeating others and policing discussion.

And this apparently also applies to many HN users, many of whom should know better.

Frankly, these mathematicians have more credibility than the sociopaths running OpenAI

You can expect the OpenAI defenders to be out in full force here.