hackerlight

P(correct) doesn't go down with token count if you have self-correction. It can actually go up with token count.

It's quite fitting that the topic of this thread is self-correction. Self-correction is a trivial existence proof that refutes what LeCun is saying, because all the LLM has to say is "I made a mistake, let me start again".

Mostly terrorists are dead and this killed far less civilians than the alternative ways of waging war (ground invasion or bombing campaign). This is the level of surgical operation that everyone was calling for since Hezbollah declared war on Israel on October 8th, and now that Israel is delivering that level of precision there's still some people complaining, it's unbelievable how naive some people are.

You should start by outlining the definition of terrorism, but by that point it would be obvious it isn't terrorism and such a post would have been unnecessary.

It's good we have different states/schools trying different things, all within the realm of sensible ideas. This creates natural experiments which will be studied in detail, and which will guide evidence-based policymaking.

There's enough plausible evidence linking social media to problems in youth that we have to bite the bullet and try something, then reassess afterwards, rather than be caught in analysis paralysis about what may go wrong with attempts to fix the issues.

They should be allowed to have the same access to and benefit of AI as any regular American business or individual. That is, access through an API. It's the secret sauce that I believe should be kept under wraps as a state secret.

They relied on the taxpayer to fund their de facto customer service. It's like aged care homes overusing a public ambulance service instead of hiring an on-call doctor or nurse. Or shops not hiring security and overusing police resources.

Public services are there to be used, but there's a line that gets regularly crossed by profit-seeking entities who do not optimize for public good and see public resources as something to be used up as much as possible as long as they can save a dollar.

chat.lmsys.org --> "Leaderboard" tab --> "Coding" drop-down selection

Or the scale.ai private benchmarks

Open sourcing benefits everyone equally. Given that the US is currently ahead, it's helping China to make gains relative to the US that would have been very difficult otherwise. It's leaking what should be state secrets without even needing the CCP to do the hard work of espionage.

If it was liberal minded people like Deng as leader of China and Gorbachev as leader of Russia I would care a lot less and may even be in favor of open source despite their autocratic system. They'd be trending towards another Singapore at that point. Although I'd still be uneasy about it.

But I'm looking at the present moment and see too many similarities with the fascist dictatorships of the past. The nationalism, militarism, unreasonable border disputes and territorial claims and irredentist attitudes. The US just isn't that, despite their history.

US has to win the race because while it's true that it's no angel, it isn't an authoritarian dictatorship and there isn't an equivalence in how bad the world will end up for you and me if the authoritarian side wins the race. Monopoly power will get abused the most by the least democratic actors, which is China. We need multiple actors within the US to win to balance power. We don't need or want China to be one of the winners. There is no upside for humanity in that outcome.

The US policymakers have figured this out with their chip export ban. Techies on the other hand, probably more than half the people here, are so naive and clueless about the reality of the moment we are in, that they support open sourcing this tech, the opposite of what we need to be doing to secure our future prosperity and freedom. Open source almost anything, just not this. It gives too much future power to authoritarians. That risk overwhelms the smaller risks that open sourcing is supposed to alleviate.

Well, Ilya doesn't think that. He's firmly in the Hinton camp, not the Lecun camp.

China can not win this race and I hate that this comment is going to be controversial among the circle of people that need to understand this the most. It is damn frightening that an authoritarian country is so close to number one in the race to the most powerful technology humanity has invented, and I resent people who push for open source AI for this reason alone. I don't want to live in a world where the first superintelligence is controlled by an entity that is threatened by the very idea of democracy.

This is not a trivial point. Selective pressures will push AI towards unsafe directions due to arms race dynamics between companies and between nations. The only way, other than global regulation, would be to be so far ahead that you can afford to be safe without threatening your own existence.