In which the CEO of the single largest social media company, who's responsible (and whose algorithms are responsible) for the mediation of human interactions across the entire planet, really dislikes losing board games so his staff is instructed to let him win
Quality QA folk are able to reason and develop an understanding of a system without ever seeing a line of code. As long as we're discussing fundamentals, being able to develop such an understanding will be a skill to develop that will pay off returns even after AI comes and goes. Even when given the code, rushing to throw print everywhere, or rushing to throw it at debugger both come behind someone that understands the system and is able to observe the bug, then sit and reason about it, and then in some cases, just fix the bug. I've worked with a couple of programmers that good, it's awesome to experience.
Point is though, you don't need to see the code to debug it, so the fact that the code was generated should not be the thing holding you back.
---
When given only three words, is the rewrite any good? When given to a human intern, would it be any good? Instead "refactor the foo that's repeated n bar, baz and qux into one reusable shared class/component/the appropriate thing for the given language" is good actual software engineering that a human would do, or ask an intern to do.
From an ethical standpoint, I think it's .. murky. Not ads themselves, but because the AI is, at least partially, likely trained on data scraped from the web, which is then more or less regurgitated (in a personalized way) and then presented with ads that do not pay the original content creators. So it's kind of like, lets consume what other people created, repackage it, and then profit off of it.
I don't see a reason to think we're not going to hit a plateua sooner or later (and probably sooner). You can't scale your way out of hallucinations, and you can't keep raising tens of billions to train these things without investors wanting a return. Once you use up the entire internets worth of stack overflow responses and public github repositories you run into the fact that these things aren't good at doing things outside their training dataset.
Long story short, predicting perpetual growth is also a trap.
You scale your way only out in verifiable domains, like code, math, optimizations, games and simulations. In all the other domains the AI developers still got billions (trillions) of tokens daily, which are validated by follow up messages, minutes or even days later. If you can study longitudinally you can get feedback signals, such as when people apply the LLM idea in practice and came back to iterate later.
> Once you use up the entire internets worth of stack overflow responses and public github repositories you run into the fact that these things aren't good at doing things outside their training dataset.
I think the models have reached that human training data limitation a few generations ago, yet they stil clearly improve by various other techniques.
I haven't followed everything Scott Adams has done recently (largely because most of his stuff ended up paywalled), but in the past I'd note that he'd have an interesting take on something, possibly hard to defend but not intrinsically "bad", but then he'd get lumped in as having a "bad" opinion by people that just wanted to create headlines. One example was his assertion that Donald Trump was a "master persuader", and much more skilled in his speech then people were giving him credit for. I remember, at the time at least, that he always prefaced it by saying it wasn't in support/antagonism of Trump, just an observation of his skill, but it quickly got turned into "Scott Adams is a MAGA guy." (Since then, I don't know if Adams ever became a MAGA guy or not, but it's an example of how at the time his statements got oversimplified and distorted). Anyway, I saw a lot of examples of that -- he'd have a relatively nuanced take probably expressed too boldly, but people wanted to just lump him in to some narrative they already had going.
I think Scott Adams' biggest problem in life (although partially what also made him entertaining), is that he'd kind of pick fights that had little upside for him and a lot of downside.
It would have been easy for you to check whether he was a "MAGA guy or not", which he was in the sense that he spent the last years of his life spreading neonazi adjacent rhetoric.
If your feelings tend to skew in favour of people suggesting that the jewish death toll in the Shoah was pulled out of the ass by someone, perhaps you'd have some to gain from keeping them in check.
"Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition? Does the figure include resistance fighters and civilians who died in the normal course of war, or just the Jews rounded up and killed systematically? No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn’t you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context? Without that context, I don’t know if I should lump the people who think the Holocaust might have been exaggerated for political purposes with the Holocaust deniers. If they are equally nuts, I’d like to know that. I want context."
He could have easily figured this out but didn't, because he preferred to publish this neo-nazi adjacent rhetoric. Nazis use this talking point all the time, you see.
I.e. it's not at all about curiosity. Arguably Scott Adams was one of the least curious famous persons in history. His cartoons were based on office related cliches, and while that provides a bit of laughter and relief to people who have negative experiences from office environments it's not based on curiosity or interest in people.
I am really confused how one can read Holocaust denial into words that literally say "No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" and "I want to know if people who think [it was] exaggerated ... are equally nuts"
Ok, I'll restate: I am really confused how one can claim as "neo-nazi adjacent rhetoric" words that literally say "No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" and "I want to know if people who think [it was] exaggerated ... are equally nuts"
> Arguably Scott Adams was one of the least curious famous persons in history.
That's a bold claim, and I would argue against it based on The Dilbert Future and God's Debris
I'll also re-quote OP: "...it's an example of how at the time his statements got oversimplified and distorted...[a]nyway, I saw a lot of examples of that -- he'd have a relatively nuanced take probably expressed too boldly, but people wanted to just lump him in to some narrative they already had going."
Because that is an extremely common neo-nazi talking point. It is tailored to people who aren't yet radicalised enough to accept denialism but puts them on a trajectory towards it, in a similar way that fossil fuel companies have designed their campaigns against climate action initiatives. 'Climate might be changing, but haven't it always? Who's to say what's really going on here, maybe they're trying to fool you again.'
It's also an extremely low effort take on the issue. That entire article can basically be summed up in a sentence, 'I know very little and I have no explanation for why no one is spoon feeding me'. It's characterised by a blatant lack of curiosity, and presenting things that wouldn't come across as particularly ambigous if you actually were curious about them as highly ambigous and contentious.
And this tactic is really, really common among far-right activists. 'I'm just a dumb dude asking innocent questions, are things really as they seem or could women be another species that you need a bit of manly coercion to perfect? Is it really the oil or is it natural causes, like this dude in a suit on the telly said it might be? How come there are so many jews among nobelists, isn't that weiuhrd...?'
Again and again he's proven that he does not have either the intellectual integrity and rigour to examine subjects he brings up, and that he somehow thinks he's the most appropriate person to do it. His attempt at Dilbert Reborn is itself a good example of this. I'm not sure whether it's a grift or material he tried to put some authenticity into but I also don't really care, he was told both in words and actions that he should be better and as far as I know never tried to be.
"Just asking questions" about how many people really died in the Holocaust is a common wedge used by deniers to bring people into the fold. If I squint, I can kind of see the point he's trying to make in that article, but why use that example? And what does he mean when he says it's "missing from the news"? Is the news supposed to detail the historical record for him every time the Holocaust is mentioned? The information is there if he wants it (a point he concedes).
When viewed in light of his Twitter persona, embrace of Trump / hard right politics in general, and his declaration that black people are a hate group, I really don't know why anyone would be eager to extend him the benefit of the doubt. He provided plenty of ammo himself, no media distortion needed.
I think that demonstrates more about you than it does about him. Asking "how did you come to this number" is a valid question anytime someone gives you a number that would be hard to calculate. Asking for receipts is not the same as being a neo nazi..
I see extremists (on both sides) do this all the time, you don't argue the actual point you just say its "adjacent to bad thing, thusly bad"
To be fair, 12 step programs would be a counter argument. The maintenance of homeostasis requires constant attention in those programs. You could say overeating is different from other addictions, and I would agree, but there are a lot of similarities too..
One might argue that homeostasis is, itself, a kind of attention that our bodies pay. Maybe by consciously changing our habits we can change our set points. In certainly way more aware of how full I actually am 3 weeks into hitting a 2000 calorie a day diet.
I use it for health advice sometimes.. but.. doesn't this seem like a massive source of liability? Are they just assuming the investor dollars will pay for the lawyers?
$25,000 in 1969 has the same buying power as approximately $220,000 to $226,000 today
In terms of 2016, from gemini:
> In 2016, $25,000 from 1969 was worth approximately $163,490.
> Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), $1 in 1969 had the same purchasing power as $6.54 in 2016. This represents a total inflation increase of roughly 554% over that 47-year period
People are just downvoting you rather than discussing for some reason. It drives me bonkers when I see that happen here... :).
rendaw was pointing out the $50k in the article & parent comment was in terms of 2016 dollars, not that the mid 60s $25k in CodeWrite23's comment converts to $50k in 2016.
I.e. that the researchers would not be getting anything close to a house + charger + spare change for just half the $50k amount. They got more like $6k-$7k at time of payment in the mid 60s. Which is still a good chunk of change for the time... just not the amounts it was made to sound.
reply