vjulian

I have a few thousand audio interviews as MP3, around an hour each and with specialized vocabulary. Typically there are no more than 2 to 3 speakers. Audio quality ranges from mediocre to fair to good.

I was thinking of creating a local app that calls OpenAI’s VTT model. In my most recent evaluation, the OpenAI model was best for my use case. But is that indeed the case?

Yes, better decided top dowm by a cabal. The more uniformity, the better.

Clearly, I’ve struck a nerve. A skill for argument is not a skill for comprehension. Insulting me personally is very telling. Clearly you’ve got quite a lot of skin in this game.

In common parlance, lobbying refers to range of activities many of which are highly undesirable to the regular guy. It is your choice to focus on the language and ignore the phenomenon.

I am lucky I have been afforded considerably more access than the average person to sway government workings to my benefit, though I do not.

This HN discussion entails three parties: the naive, the just, and the exploiters.

The discussion has been lost in semantics between technical definition and practice. At issue is the latter.

Reading this as sarcasm, it indeed reflects a portion of the faerie tale descriptions of government taught in American schools. It is state propaganda of the most traditional (and effective) sort— that which is directed at children.

Did the recorders just happen to be running and capture this candid utterance from Sam Altman? I suggest we stop entertaining manufactured quotes as anything but.

My, how sex averse. Personally, I would rather good design prevent people from picking their noses in robocabs. Disguising. Good design enables sex.

David Lee Roth did it.

50 year old grandmother of 5.

I’m not suggesting that Three Mile Island was anything like Chernobyl. I’m saying that neither is comparable to the HF situation where mere 1s and 0s interacted in an unplanned way. It’s an interesting data point—-back to work.

Not is the HF data point anywhere near a Three Mile Island type incident. Most commentary I read is a wild overreaction fueled by paranoia, to say nothing about my other point about the implications of AI as a national security asset.

I don’t understand the bases of all these recommendations. AI is an asset for national security. It will be developed and incidents will happen, no different from other national security programs.

Someday, laws will be useful to curtail plebian misuse of AI. It is naïve bordering on silly to think such laws would be put in place and genuinely applied to frontier AI development.

By the way, the HF incident is not Three Mile Island or Chernobyl—-it is a very interesting data point where unintended things happened to existing 1s and 0s.

This seems like yet another piece in a build up to a civil war. And those in governance know it.

That is an unnecessary default and also generalizes AI to the point of being analytically not useful.