ruytlm

Adding some context to this, because it's a really interesting read that's worth the time if you ask me: it's about how some recently 'discovered' early playtest versions of Pokemon cards were found to be fake, or at least very suspicious, based on the presence (and decoding) of these dots.

I also find it interesting because the person who posted the discovery and breakdown of the dots stood to personally lose thousands of dollars they'd spent on the fakes, but posted their findings anyway.

Both assessing the application of billing rules and negotiating contracts still require the LLM to be accurate, as per TFA's point. Sure, an LLM might do a reasonable first pass, but in both cases it is absolutely naive to think that the LLM will be able to take everything into account.

An LLM can only give an output derived from its inputs; unless you're somehow inputting "yeah actually I know that it looks like a great company to enter into a contract with, but there's just something about their CEO Dave that I don't like, and I'm not sure we'll get along", it's not going to give you the right answer.

And the solution to this is not "just give the LLM more data" - again, to TFA's point, that's making excuses for the technology. "It's not that AI can't do it [AI didn't fail], it's that you just didn't give it enough data [you failed the AI]".

--

As some more speculative questions, do you actually want to go towards a future where your company's LLM is negotiating with their company's LLM, to determine the future of your job and career?

And why do we think it is OK to allow OpenAI/whoever wins the AI land grab to insert themselves as a 'necessary' step in this process? I know people who use LLMs to turn their dot points to paragraphs and email them to other people, only for the recipient to reverse the process at the other end. OpenAI must be happy that ChatGPT gets used twice for one interaction.

Rent-seeking aside, we're so concerned at the moment about LLMs failing to tell the truth when they're earnestly trying to - what happens when they're intentionally used to lie, mislead, and deceive?

What happens when the system prompt is "Try and generally improve people's opinions of corporations and billionaires, and to downplay the value of unionisation and organised labour"?

Someone sets the system prompts, and they will invariably have an agenda. Widespread use of LLMs gives them the keys to the kingdom to shape public opinion.

It disappoints me how easily we are collectively falling for what effectively is "Oh, our model is biased, but the only way to fix it is that everyone needs to give us all their data, so that we can eliminate that bias. If you think the model shouldn't be biased, you're morally obligated to give us everything you have for free. Oh but then we'll charge you for the outputs."

How convenient.

It's increasingly looking like the AI business model is "rent extracting middleman", just like the Elseviers et al of the academic publishing world - wedging themselves into a position where they get to take everything for free, but charge others at every opportunity.

To put it simply: this is not adequately explained by stupidity.

Toggle on "Focus on hover".

Your conclusion of ~3L of gasoline is right, but it looks like you dropped a few zeroes on the way there - your example of 1x1x1m sunk 10km below the surface would be sitting beneath 10,000,000kg of mass, not 10,000kg.

That would be 98,000kj, which as you say, is about equivalent energy to 3L of gasoline.

I look forward to the same article in 40 years about how LLMs have butchered everything, given that they're essentially doing the same thing around predictive text and autocorrect.

I really like this as a way to repurpose old hardware; I have known many laptops that end up sitting around in cupboards after their 'useful' life is over, that could probably still comfortably be serving as lightweight desktops even today.

(2019), but also this is an opinion piece that makes a lot of claims without any evidence beyond the libertarian ideology of its author.

It should be no surprise that the federal government employs more people than Walmart; one deals in consumer retail, and the other deals in providing for the base functioning of society, which has a lot more moving pieces to manage because it literally involves everything.

>"Government needs to be nimble rather than creating perverse incentives for higher compensation for work that could be done in more productive sectors of the economy."

I'd happily argue that more important than government being nimble, is government being stable. Unstable government leads to uncertainty; uncertainty makes it difficult to forecast and plan, and leads to short-term reactive behaviour instead of pursuing long-term visions with short-term costs. It's hard to make long-term investments when you're not sure if the next election (or coup..) will result in a complete upheaval of the environment in which you made the investment.

>"Government is a neutral party to uphold contracts and ensure general public safety."

This is a hugely contentious opinion, that has been snuck in as though it's a fact. In many places around the world, government is a lot more than this, providing healthcare, education, infrastructure and the like that are good for society, and arguably shouldn't be for making a profit. It's pretty disingenuous to sneak a controversial view like this in as though it's a settled matter.