hanibrel

We can only hope that this happens more often and more broadly in order to shape public (and public officials') awareness of the sloppiness before there is broad investment into AI tooling to assist police in evaluating incoming submissions.

In that sense, Anthropic did society a great service by doing this.

I'm curious why this comment was voted down.

Is it because people don't agree that one can just take such things for free? Well, I also don't, but this was obviously a sarcastic comment, so down voting for that reason makes no sense since you agree with its sentiment.

Or is it because of the style? Are we really so sensitive now that anything not said explicitly but in some indirect way is bad? It's not like the comment was insulting anybody. Should it explicitly have said "They don't renumerate anybody because they clearly get away with it"? Would that really have been better?

Or do the down voters not agree with the sentiment but consider the behavior ok?

Or something else I'm overlooking?

I'd have asked the speaker if he scanned his actual hotel room at the conference.

I'm actually quite certain that he did. Imagine the scoop, opening your conference presentation with what you found upstairs the evening before!

Non-branching memory accesses?

> The speaker in the video was extremely difficult for me to understand but the idea seems quite clever.

With a bit of practice it's actually quite easy to understand the accent of Chinese speakers as they have some typical patterns and speak slowly.

I must say, I loved listening to him because this was genuine human work. Human made slides (with lots of ugliness coming with PowerPoint), human typos, human grammar mistakes, all of it. It may be flawed in some ways but this fully removed any doubts that a slop machine came even near it. So refreshing in this day and age!

Now please show me the consequences from the Hugging Face incident. The company or the engineers individually apparently have nothing to be worried about.

IMO social engineering is not engineering because it has nothing to with the physical sciences.

IMO reverse engineering is not engineering because it has nothing to with the physical sciences.

That's not how language works.

"Can do the coding part of my job" is your definition of "almost AGI"?

I don't know a single taxi driver who 5 years ago would have claimed "my car can now park itself, FSD must be barely 6 months away".

I think you are missing the point of the main criticism. It is not about not wanting results in terms of proofs.

New theories and insights are typically created while working out proofs. If proofs now suddenly fall out of the sky (cause LLMs create them) then that work is not done which means the substrate on which new theories and questions and conjectures used to be grown disappears. It's in that sense that the math community (and thereby society as a whole) will lose something.

It's similar to how software engineering will need to find a solution to train their next generation. Current generations have all been through manual steps of designing things from scratch and writing them by hand. That's what allows your 10x engineers to understand whether what their LLM tools are doing is good and how to massage those tools to do the right thing. A junior engineer who has only ever used LLMs to write code and create architectures does not just not have that experience but also won't acquire it. You can't just say "we don't pay them to have fun and learn, we pay them to produce results". In the short term that is the case, but in the long term you as a company and we as a community will lose out.

I'm not saying don't use AI tooling. I'm saying that this is a hard problem which we yet to have to find solutions and approaches to. As a software community as well as as society in general.

But not necessarily in a good way. This introduces a bias into the users prompt which is not there without the suggestion. So, arguably, this feature makes the users inputs less useful for training because they are partially impacted by model output.

This is similar to blog articles since 2023 or so onwards being less useful for model training since more and more of them are based on LLM output to varying degrees.

Go a step further and randomize it. Different page at every request.

> In person, pure paper voting, in local community halls etc, run by volunteers is the best voting system.

Unless those volunteers are all die-hard fans of a particular party/candidate and thereby intimidating everybody that has a different opinion. (Not openly of course, but if everybody knows everybody, the mere presence suffices to sway people.)

Any book recommendation from William Cleveland on the subject?

There should be a similar metric for information density in an article. This one is so repetitive that it's hard to keep reading since the whole point was already contained in the first section. The rest keeps just repeating again and again. Too bad the slop density is off the charts on this one.

I know plenty of overweight chefs.

And I also know plenty of ripped folks who hardly ever cook. Granted, they don't only eat fast food, but quite a lot of it.