hfbff

>A note for my European friends - some of these links might not work from outside the US, as some .gov links tend not to.

Is the author assuming you're either from the US or European if you're reading the blog?

This has been my experience too. The transactional vs familiar thing is a tradeoff IMHO and people will have different preferences.

Also: I'd like to ask you a few questions on Latam remote work. My email is in my About if you have the time!

I've talked about this topic with many people and it seldom matches the opinions of many people here in hacker news. I wonder if hacker news is biased towards a specific type of people that is less social / more family oriented / etc? (Of course, the people I meet in real life could be the more biased sample)

Are you saying that the US does believe in a rules-based international system? Let's count the number of countries the USA has invaded vs China...and the government topples with the help of the USA vs China

From your point of view, I can see how China is bad and the USA is good. But ask someone whose country got invaded by the USA or whose bloody dictator got supported by the USA. Over here in Latinamerica we still remember the horrible things that the USA did. It seems to me (but I could have a false perception) that China is a horrible bully in their corner of the world (nine dash line and, of course their will to invade Taiwan), but their foreign policy is order of magnitude less intrusive (i.e. they don't invade or topple countries on the other side of the world).

You're right, that's the core mechanims of GANs. The current state of the art models aren't using a GAN structure, but it's plausible that they achieve state of the art numbers in the future

>People who are great at writing prompts for ChatGPT aren't going to be that, either.

I don't see why this would be true. If you have evidence of some strong argument on why this would be true, I'd like to hear them.

As an anecdote, I work with young people (x<25) that don't seem to be worse at recalling facts than the older generation. The bright/geeky ones grew up reading up wikipedia and, in fact, have a wider grasp of facts/stories than the older generation (in my experience)

Text generating models are so much more than spell checkers, but allow me to make a comparison .

Before spell checkers, having good spelling was relatively difficult and it allowed employers/teachers/etc to separate the "good" people from the "bad". After spell checkers became ubiquitous (unless you have to handwrite!), having good spelling became the norm and the floor becomes much higher. A document with bad spelling means the person doesn't know of spell checkers (a sign that the person isn't computer savvy enough?) Or doesn't care enough.

Did spell checkers reduce the language capacity of students? Maybe they did start putting less attention into spelling, but I would argue it's ok because now we have more assistance. If you really want to test their spelling, you can always do a handwritten, in class quiz.

ChatGPT and the like may be different because they are written the whole thing, right? Well, kind of. You still need to give the prompt to express what you want to say. You still need to correct stuff and exercise judgment to see if the style in this paragraph is ok, if the facts stated over in that other paragraphs are ok. Besides, you still need to learn how to write because of the in class quiz next week.

I think keeping an embargo and hurting a country for 60 years is enough to send a signal. In any case, the US government isn't doing it motivated by some intertemporal consistency (and thinking of the next 200 years of foreign policy), they do it for the cuban swing voters

It's funny that you mention poetry. With poetry I do like to feel the sound of words.

I very much like Emily Dickinson, why? (What's your favorite piece of poetry?)

This is your opinion. Many experts (the majority right now?) do see the beginning of general intelligence and I would urge you to at least entertain the possibility that those experts are right.

(Also, general intelligence is not usually synonymous with self awareness in the literature. You might want to argue that, but it's, I think, a minority opinion)

Why is Sartre de waiter? I don't get it

My experience with academics is that most don't know / don't understand the benefits of coding things in a better way, so they don't even consider hiring someone to help.

The other issue is that the incentives aren't necessarily aligned. They don't get payed to share their code or to make their code reusable. The code is used to publish one or a couple of paper and then thrown away. Maybe someone else will reuse it in the future but the original author doesn't necessarily gain much from that

I don't think you're being charitable enough. GP point is actually thought-provoking (at least to me): doing it for humans doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to do it for AI? The more advanced the AI, the less sense it makes.

I think it's related with the "substantive elaboration" test with regards to copyright (sorry I can't remember the proper term). If I just copy a scene from your movie, you can probably sue me. If I take some elements from it, but do my own thing so that it read more like a parody/comment / meta-comment, then it's ok.

Is AI just parroting back stuff or is it creating new things? A few years ago, I would have said it's just parroting. With the current models I think we are midway (it will depend on the propmt too!). In a couple of years my bet is that we'll be clearly on the "creating new thinfs territory".