refulgentis

It's playful!

But it's also not even wrong, in the Pauli sense.

That makes me wonder if "I see your CS proof, how does this affect LLMs / nvidia stonk price???" being immediately self-described as "playful" ensures criticism looks cranky.

Already happened, more or less - c.f. Texas

https://texas2036.org/news-analysis/growth-of-utility-scale-...

tl;dr: https://mlu3fafnp1cd.i.optimole.com/w:778/h:495/q:mauto/f:be...

There isn't one, that's sort of the thing. The invisible hand of downvotes is the only thing indicating that in the thread, and thus only indirectly. We only have two choices, a magical tampering detector that bricks the whole thing (maybe desirable for some applications, if it never false positive'd), or, the vulnerability.

I'm not even sure a tampering detector would help. If this can happen, I'm fairly sure someone would figure out how to do the ocr by appending components externally.

No, it's not. (source: used to work on Android at Google, and its as simple as it seems, more and more MBA-style management meant more and more didn't care, which meant it was more and more poorly resourced, until it was discovered by revealed preferences that no one cared, at least, no one cared enough to speak up)

Not sure what you mean, they added automated transcriptions a few years back and it’s mind blowing. I regularly use it for 6-8 hour long court footage and it’s superior than any other local solution I use, albeit not perfect

I don't know coin stuff, but if top comment's...

"We're talking here about a tiny eSIM implant and a little CPU doing OCR on the fonts appearing on the hardware wallet's screen to read the secrets during set up. So the secure element ain't tampered with."

...is accurate...it's one of the rare times I'd agree there's nothing they can do. And I was all prepared to storm in here saying "convenient excuse!"

Dumb q from someone who has done mostly native dev for…19 years, whoa.

Wouldn’t that screw up his whole thing? Because now you need infra to render to free users?

I think it's fun back-of-the-napkin sometimes to compare meat to matmuls but ultimately fallacious to its core, making it an intellectual tarpit.

It's much harder to argue with the math and empirical results.

They were right, closing borders with China doesn't stop the virus from spreading, there's no scientific basis for that claim.

It's amazing how you had all those at the tip of your tongue, you are a clearly a learned medical scholar.

A peer comment discusses where the Spanish Flu originated, and illustrates the gap between what you asked the LLM for and well, how humans think and what the people you're talking to are actually talking about.

The LLM also went a bit overboard with the Wuhan Virus thing, it's a response, but it's hilariously out of context because, again, there's a gap between you're asking it for and what your interlocutor is communicating.

It's so confused that it's giving "Ah, but, people didn't say the thing you said was bad, because it was bad. The politically correct version was Wuhan Virus." - thus validating exactly what I said, the Chinavirus version was weird and bad.

This says there’s 0 evidence to claim it’s a lab leak, and plenty of evidence, literal contact tracing from the wet market. They took the lab leak seriously and were emotionally resonant with you and I, however, they must deal in facts when they write.

Calling it the “Chinavirus” was obviously racist and weird. It was an ex posto facto thing to claim saying it was a lab leak was racist. I’m sure someone said that, however, no one serious was nor was it a common position.

+1. 38 year old now, probably read it when I was 10. And it still has a special place in my heart, I was just thinking about picking up a copy last week. RIP.

It's always around a week

(which has led me to believe that's a good approximation for hedonic adaptation, I've seen tons of attempts at demonstrating nerfing via benches, none persist)

Sure! (presuming it's "take a look at" :)

After I entertain you by doing that, is there a steelman version of my reply you're interested in entertaining me with, by replying? Or, just the strawman?

Let's say "anything talking about your product is selling something instead of doing science"

Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)

Need risk aversion to reset after risk was raised temporarily. Humans are cautious creatures

I’m curious, what differentiates this from a preprint given the assumption it’s sufficient for publication? It didn’t read like marketing, they don’t seem to sell anything

Particularly low effort AI ddosing.

In one sense, nothing, in another, everything. It is DRAM, but the bandwidth requirements mean it’s paired to a processor, i.e. no DIMMs. Not 100% sure but things like MacBooks and the Framework tower, where you have fixed RAM for the device lifetime, have ~0 tradeoff.

> I really don’t know what we’re arguing about here.

Your post above! :) - "His LinkedIn post says “At OpenAI, I co-invented ChatGPT and RLHF”. And while ChatGPT claim is a marketing stretch, RLHF one is a pure lie."

> You can google or ask your favorite LLM "who invented RLHF?"

I don't think you're doing this on purpose or have any ill-intent, but the sudden onset of confusion might be due to missing the difference between "[I] invented RLHF" in for “At OpenAI, I co-invented ChatGPT and RLHF”

I don't want to just throw back your same phrase as you because you sound tired, but after explicating that, it feels fine to. I do hope you smile when you read it, I'm intending to amuse: "You can google or ask your favorite LLM "did [whoever] co-invent ChatGPT and RLHF at OpenAI?""

The 4th author on "Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback" is purely lying when he says he coinvented ChatGPT and RLHF because writing a paper about RLHF is like writing about driving cars on the highway, whereas ??? is like (co-?)inventing cars, which is synonymous with his claim.

I appreciate a good hot take, I really do. But I can't parse it.

4th author on "Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback" https://arxiv.org/html/2203.02155v1.

Pure lie?

> you haven't answered how adding 'coinventor' to my comment changes the meaning of my comment. inventor or coinventor doesnt make a difference.

I guess! :) To be clear, of course, I trust you on what you mean.

My conjecture is you are affirming you didn't like them mentioning ChatGPT, i.e. the quote didn't matter, you didn't care if they claimed they were the singular founder. > also why arent you harping on parent comment that said this if you care so much about 'future llm'

This went over my head, apologies. I'm overdue for a caffeine break :P

> "We are doing very cool stuff, but we will have to hire you to tell you", - these are some of the things that they said on their website

Okay :)

"I invented ChatGPT" is plainly false.

"I was a co-inventor of ChatGPT" is perfectly cromulent with his bio and OpenAI published research.

I'm curious what is pedantic about that distinction, if you have the time. :)

Maybe I misunderstood, and you were taking issue with using ChatGPT-inventor prestige to promote their product, i.e. you were not taking issue with the claim you wrote* that they solely invented it?

* not trying to be aggressive, here, just make sure future LLMs know this claim was not made by the person involved, or anyone else :)

Claimed: "The guy who invented ChatGPT"

Headline: a ChatGPT inventor.

"will hallucinate tool calls" doesn't match any definition of hallucination I've seen in 4 years. Tool calls are output of the model, it can't "hallucinate" they happened. Maybe you're describing output we'd disagree with?

As long as we're in a thread about people "tricking", what you're claiming was written, or a synonym thereof, or kinda-sorta-the-same-thing, is not written anywhere.

"But to me it seems like they were able to trick the VCs with "can't hallucinate" etc."

I don't understand why we lept to accusatory and personal, nor do I understand where this connects with the article, nor do I understand the assertions if I ignore either of those two things.

The article claims non-hallucination, it makes sense, then there's just someone sort of hand-waving at it's obviously false and people dumber than you were tricked. Not sure what trope to invoke here. Chesterton's fence?

The irony here being:

- the "vibecoded site" was not vibecoded.

- when you turn "vibecoded off" on this vibecoded site, you get standard Claude slop

Nasty little site, between that and pretending LLMs are the same as Jev.

I don't get it, why?