reallyeli

The survey (https://career-research.mynavi.jp/reserch/20241003_86953/) which is the basis for the 1 in 5 claim seems sus, I would bet it's not true. (I don't read Japanese, but had Claude read it for me; if someone who does read Japanese could confirm, that would be interesting.)

They say 16.6% of people who changed jobs last year used these services, but only 23.2% of companies report having any employees use them. If 16.6% is correct, the % of companies number should be much higher, supposing companies have multiple resignations per year.

The method for the first number on how they found their respondents is described just as "internet survey," with no further info. There are a lot of ways to do this that would over-sample people who use these services.

Comment · 2 years ago

I just joined -- contrary to this, my 'Discover' feed (equiv to Twitter's 'For You') is mostly dogs and nature photos, rather than anti-Musk content.

Still not really what I'm after, but that's what the 'Following' tab is for.

Comment · 2 years ago

My guess is they just trained gpt3.5-turbo-instruct on a lot of chess, much more than is in e.g. CommonCrawl, in order to boost it on that task. Then they didn't do this for other models.

People are alleging that OpenAI is calling out to a chess engine, but seem to be not considering this less scandalous possibility.

Of course, to the extent people are touting chess performance as evidence of general reasoning capabilities, OpenAI taking costly actions to boost specifically chess performance and not being transparent about it is still frustrating and, imo, dishonest.

Comment · 2 years ago

Nice, was getting sick of my old map of medieval London

Comment · 3 years ago

> Luminaries in the field such as Demis Hassabis and Yann LeCun believe that AI can turbocharge scientific progress and lead to a golden age of discovery. Could they be right?... Such claims are worth examining, and may provide a useful counterbalance to fears about large-scale unemployment and killer robots.

But will we maintain control of the above-human-ability, autonomous AI systems these companies are racing to build? This is the AI control problem.

If not, then "AI can automate science" isn't much of a counterpoint or reason to be optimistic -- science may be automated, but not under any human's control and not for any human's benefit. In fact, if we're in this situation, the ability of AI systems to automate science is worse news than otherwise, in the same way that the invention of science by humans was bad (or at best, very mixed) news for the animals of Earth.