heavyarms

The last time I checked (a few days ago) it only had an "Upload Image" option... and I have been playing with Gemini on and off for months and I have never been able to actually upload an image.

It's basically what I've come to expect from most Google products at this point: half-baked, buggy, confusing, not intuitive.

There's not a lot of detail in the announcement but I assume this is some kind of RAG system. I wonder if it will cover some short time period (past week, past month?) or if they are trying to cover the whole time period since the knowledge cutoff of the current model.

What mechanism would make it possible to enforce non-paywalled, non-authenticated access to public web pages? This is a classic "problem of the commons" type of issue.

The AI companies are signing deals with large media and publishing companies to get access to data without the threat of legal action. But nobody is going to voluntarily make deals with millions of personal blogs, vintage car forums, local book clubs, etc. and setup a micro payment system.

Any attempt to force some kind of micro payment or "prove you are not a robot" system will add a lot of friction for actual users and will be easily circumvented. If you are LinkedIn and you can devote a large portion of your R&D budget on this, you can maybe get it to work. But if you're running a blog on stamp collecting, you probably will not.

If this is a GPT-generated joke, I'd say they cracked AGI.

Whenever I see one of these posts, I click just to see if the proposed solution to testing the output of an LLM is to use the output of an LLM... and in almost all cases it is. It doesn't matter how many buzzwords and acronyms you use to describe what you're doing, at the end of the day it's turtles all the way down.

The issue is not the technology. When it comes to natural language (LLM responses that are sentences, prose, etc.) there is no actual standard by which you can even judge the output. There is no gold standard for natural language. Otherwise language would be boring. There is also no simple method for determining truth... philosophers have been discussing this for thousands of years and after all that effort we now know that... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... and also, Earth is Flat and Birds Are Not Real.

Take, for example, the first sentence of my comment: "Whenever I see one of these posts, I click just to see if the proposed solution to testing the output of an LLM is to use the output of an LLM... and in almost all cases it is." This is absolutely true, in my own head, as my selective memory is choosing to remember that one time I clicked on a similar post on HN. But beyond the simple question of if it is true or not, even an army of human fact checkers and literature majors could probably not come up with a definitive and logical analysis regarding the quality and veracity of my prose. Is it even a grammatically correct sentence structure... with the run-on ellipsis and what not... ??? Is it meant to be funny? Or snarky? Who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WFT is that random pile of punctuation marks in the middle of that sentence... does the LLM even have a token for that?

If you're running a company that is paying multiple vendors for basic AI features and LLM functionality, it might be worth doing the calculation of how much of that functionality might be covered by getting all of your employees on iOS and MacOS...

There are lots of valid use cases for speech synthesis and text-to-speech technology, and there are like 1 or 2 valid/legal use cases for voice cloning that I can think of. Ignoring the moral and ethical questions, why would anybody devote time and resources building a company around a very niche solution... one in which your customer churn rate is partially dependent on users not ending up in prison.

edit: typo

Had to chuckle when I looked at the Digital Advertising Alliance WebChoices browser tool (in Safari or any browser with cross-site tracking disabled). It allows you to opt out of being tracked, as long as you enable cross-site tracking and let them add a cookie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This makes sense on a number of fronts.

1. If you have capital to invest, you could do worse than AI startups at the moment.

2. Nvidia's long-term threat is not just direct competitors (AMD, Intel), but the big cloud-players going to in-house chips. Supporting the next wave of your customers makes sense.

3. Using Nvidia is the path of least resistance right now. If you only invest in startups using your products (and you are an active investor), you give startups another reason to avoid taking a risk on the alternative.

edit: typo

I assume if one of the names in the paper was O'Shaughnessy you would immediately think: "Irish immigrant!" Schmidt? German immigrant!

Ignoring the obvious issue that this whole anonymous story seems suspiciously perfect for selling a related product...

On the one hand... Companies spent the past couple of decades engaging in various SEO hacks to rank high on search results and OpenAI scraped the internet to train a language model. Theoretically, it seems possible that some of the SEO techniques at least partially colored the flavor of LLM-generated text, and an "AI detector" could pick that up. So if you do a great job writing SEO optimized text (wordy, structured, lots of repeated key words, etc.) you are more likely to be flagged.

But really.. "AI Detector" services are snake oil and will lead to the creation of "Anti AI Detector" services that offer protective spells against the original snake oil. See, we eliminate a bunch of jobs with AI but we create whole new disciplines of work that didn't exist before. "AI Generated Content Obfuscation Specialist - III - W2" coming to a job board near you soon.

I've been thinking along the same lines. The token window IMO should be a conceptual inverted pyramid, where there most recent tokens are retained verbatim but previous iterations are compressed/pooled more and more as the context grows. I'm sure there's some effort/research in this direction. It seems pretty obvious.

I think the claim is based on the public political statements made by leaders in Texas. The fact that there is a huge discrepancy in what they say publicly against the science of global warming and the utility of renewables versus what the investment numbers say is the really sad part. Basically it boils down to: I'm going to lie through my teeth to pander to the stupid people who vote for me, but I'm also going to create favorable conditions for my wealthy buddies to make a killing in renewables.