Re:Advancements in machine learning for machine learning
by dindobre on Saturday December 16, 2023 @05:08AM
(#38663134)
The LaMDA is sentient guy gave me the impression of being a bit nuts. I'm sure google would show their weight and out-compete openai if they could. We all know all this "AI safety" is for show, right?
Re:Advancements in machine learning for machine learning
by staunton on Saturday December 16, 2023 @05:48AM
(#38663314)
> We all know all this "AI safety" is for show, right?
No. A lot of people think it really matters
A lot of other people pretend to care about it because it also enables stifling the competition and attempting regulatory capture. But it's not all of them.
Re:Advancements in machine learning for machine learning
by snewman on Saturday December 16, 2023 @11:25AM
(#38665415)
I'm personally devoting my career to AI safety, on a volunteer basis, because I think it's is legitimately of high importance. (See my blog, e.g. https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/implications-of-agi, if you want to understand where I'm coming from.)
What makes you think it is for show?
Re:Advancements in machine learning for machine learning
by y04nn on Saturday December 16, 2023 @01:19PM
(#38666481)
No, it's for brand safety and reputation. In 2016 Microsoft released Tay [1] without or lacking guards and it ended up being a failure and hurter the Microsoft brand.
Re:Advancements in machine learning for machine learning
by rvnx on Saturday December 16, 2023 @04:54AM
(#38663085)
LaMDA is really far from being sentient.
It's outputs non-sensical (aka highly hallucinating) or relatively useless but coherent text.
It really needs further refinement.
This is one big reason why GPT-4 is still the most popular.
Ultimately though, it's futile to argue which model got done first, as long as the models were behind closed doors. But ChatGPT launched before Bard did and that's the pertinent part that gave OpenAI the first-mover advantage.