strangegecko
What on earth is a "natural conclusion" in this context? I'm going to assume that part of your comment was written by AI.
> Why isn't it an issue for hyperscalar data centers, particularly as NVidia wants to move to annual chip updates.
Because he's not a hyperscaler? He's not operating data centers where compute is fungible, he's buying an individual machine that he wants to use for years. He can't just keep buying a new machine and fob off the old one to someone else's less demanding workload.
In most countries, there are simply too many patients per doctor, meaning it's a conveyor belt of "good enough" 5 minute appointments.
People will turn to other modes of discussing and analyzing their problems if they go to professionals repeatedly and the problem still isn't solved. Just telling them not to do so or to ignore 100% of it isn't going to solve that.
> It is not realistic to stop the generation of nonsense (of the malicious or the stupid sort).
Seems like a big statement. Why is it not realistic? People are already doing it manually by having one LLM fact check output from another.
There really needs to be some kind of "double check" mechanism built into these things instead of putting 100% of that on the consumer. Humans simply don't have the mental capacity to double check the amount of data coming out of LLMs.
If you include opportunity cost into the decision, then your contrast can and often will disappear (i.e. renting is financially superior or "winning" in your terminology).
Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.
What are you basing that claim on?
How do you know it's an actual preference and not mainly caused by external factors (e.g. not wanting to be seen doing unkind things, wanting to be seen as upstanding)?
Isn't it simply that there are two competing goals that the LLM received RL for, honesty on one hand (a goal that is often assumed as implicit for humans) and producing a solution that meets expectations (which doesn't technically require honesty)?
So the LLM didn't read and interpret the prompt and decide via discussion to violate ethical behavior, the unethical result merely won out because ethics wasn't a hard requirement (and one that isn't reliably detected in the result). An LLM doesn't fear punishment, so ethical behavior is simply one of many positive signals that were trained into it.
> give the friend a subtle clue that it's time to move on
If a friend needs someone to listen about life struggles and you tell them you're tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore, then you're not being a friend. Maybe you want to be encouraging and that is fine, probably helpful. But you immediately seem to turn that encouragement into threats of social exclusion:
> If that clue isn't heeded the friend often gets targeted 1:1 offers for help and can eventually just be shut out of the group altogether for being too negative.
I've seen this many times - people suggest "solutions" to something they don't quite understand, then get angry when people don't take their non-functional solution. Similarly, in online support groups, I've seen plenty of people storm off angrily because people are being "too negative", not seeing that sharing these feelings, wanting to be heard and knowing you're not alone with certain struggles can be part of a discovery and healing process. Those people use similar language you used in your comment of "misery loves company", essentially accusing people of wanting to be miserable and choosing depression.
If you want people to read what you write in a charitable fashion, refusing to explain the background for your comments is rather dysfunctional BTW. In general, people don't all have the same mental context and experience background to understand where you're coming from.
This isn't analogous to the threat of AI.
Lots of smaller and mid sized companies that tried to invest in the Chinese market lost everything because the government protected and supported local copycats, with no intention of giving the foreign company fair access to the market.
You could conceivably walk to a car wash that has similar sundries as a gas station.
Misplaced brackets seem like a thing from the past to me when we didn't have IDEs. I don't remember ever having a bug due to that.
Even if you are good at those, for many companies, it's more about connections than about the ability to build stuff. So if you don't know the right people, it is very difficult to get a foothold.
The covert stuff gives some degree of plausible deniability and it causes a good amount of the population to be complacent and ignore reality. I don't see how this can be considered good for anyone but the people creating propaganda.
I don't like it from any party, but from a moral standpoint, the more authoritarian someone is about their propaganda, the more invasive and violent it feels to me.
I perceive what the CCP is doing as denying my (and other people's) humanity and individual rights. I simply cannot accept a government that imprisons artists and human rights activists. A world where art is crime is not one I find worth living in.
I perceive American propaganda in the same category as advertising, harmful and annoying, but they won't lock me up or threaten my safety if I speak up against the propaganda. Well, at least that's how it used to be, who knows with the current trajectory.
If I'm off on a detail like that, then...uh oh.
Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan.
Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative just how they can do it internally in China.