madhatter999

Publicly…

Like you foresaw, I'll say this is the reality for most people. I think that just like now, those who want to do meaningful work will seek opportunities to do so.

If we had something like a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs but for work, I think meaningfulness would be the top of the pyramid. For most people in the world, not going hungry or affording housing are reasons enough to do work. Getting to do work you find meaningful is truly a privilege.

I think you're assuming work's only function is getting things done. Work also is a crowd control tool.

If that's what Occam's razor would suggest, then Occam presumes a world where actors do what they say. We see more and more the opposite of that in Silicon Valley.

You may well be right about Google not including the said data but your support for this point is weak.

Given it's Google, I don't believe it.

Makes sense when you consider what type of data Google had available in abundance. Natural written language (e.g., Docs, Gmail, Books) and natural spoken language (e.g., YouTube).

One could argue that Google Colab would supply the training data for better coding performance. I would argue that Colab is mostly used for non-complex (e.g., small number of variables) and self-contained (i.e., runnable in one page) code that can’t train a model for multi-folder and multi-page projects that rely on global connections, which real-life coding would often require.

I agree. The Fable fiasco was the first yikes moment in my relationship with Anthropic and based on what I'm reading, this is valid for many others. Sonnet 5 isn't helping their case as well.

To add to this, one can’t ignore the relationship between signal and receiver. I’d imagine most people on HN have enough pre-LLM reading experience to have a decent sense of what was written by an LLM versus a human.

And as LLMs get better at producing human-like text, that same pre-LLM reading experience, which helps people tell the two apart, will become less and less common.

Plus somebody will create an AI-powered program to take in text and have it “perform” the writing process with keystrokes and mouse movements and all that.

It’s kind of confusing but the comparison is not with input photos to the left, it is with reference photos to the right

Thanks for the clarification. I did look at it pretty quickly initially. Students might be over-relying on GPTs, which means less studying, which means less useful retention in the exam

Relying on GPT while solving the problems must be inflating the grades (my use of the word inflate is intentional, because the evaluation does not represent the true knowledge of the student), which then results in lower retention in the long run.

From the abstract:

“Consistent with prior work, our results show that access to GPT-4 significantly improves performance (48% improvement for GPT Base and 127% for GPT Tutor). However, we additionally find that when access is subsequently taken away, students actually perform worse than those who never had access (17% reduction for GPT Base).”

Kids who use ChatGPT do actually “significantly” better according to the authors. Now I don’t know if significantly means statistically significant here because I haven’t read the methodology but 127% increase in performance must be something. That said, that’s a clickbaity title if I’ve ever seen one.

Edit: Upon closer reading, the increase in performance is statistically significant. Also “access to GPT“ in this case is having GPT open while solving the problems, not studying with GPT and then solving the problems, which was my first understanding from the clickbaity title. Results are not terribly surprising in that regard.

Also take into consideration the speed of evolution. LLM training might be much faster because a lot of competition power is used for its training. Maybe if it was the same speed as evolution then it would take billions of years, too?