I'm somewhat skeptical of that approach. It's not even clear if "world models" are significant for our subcouscious decision making as human beings. Why assume it's necessary for AI?
I should have added weasel words like "maybe" and "probably" because I don't know you. Yet, everything I wrote, I have observed numerous times in other people.
And (and of course, maybe I'm wrong here) if you hadn't learned algebra, this solution would have been more obvious to you. Obviously we can't run that experiment directly. But think back to your childhood. Did you ever intuitively know the answer to a problem that others struggled with? Does that happen as often lately?
Formal methods like algebra are powerful and allow us to document, step by step, transformations that would be impossible to hold in our heads informally. We can solve problems that were unapproachable before. But we can get so used to using them that we forget intuitive tricks that we used to use.
Maybe this didn't happen to you. You're right. I don't know you. I'm only extrapolating. It really is the sort of simple problem that many people (possibly most of them younger) can solve immediately without assigning variable names or even writing anything down.
If this describes your capabilities when you were younger, then something changed. What is it?
Is it just me, or is "cost plus drugs" a horrible name?
I know they probably intend it as "[Cost-plus] drugs", but I can't help but read it as "I'll do the job for you for the material cost, plus some drugs".
Do you have a source for that? The NYT article does not quote Xi making that statement, and I can't find a source for that. There was a blog post by a state-linked broadcaster:
> “China supports openness, but this does not mean it advocates for the unconditional proliferation of all capabilities,” the blog said.
The article also quoted an American journalist:
> “If these models do reach those dangerous capabilities, they are not going to let it be a free-for-all in terms of releasing them," Mr. Sheehan said.
But a distinction has to be drawn between real dangers (which many people believe LLMs have not actually shown, to date) versus "dangers" hyped up marketing purposes or domestic regulatory-capture motives. Presumably the Chinese government is less interested in the latter.
Absolutely, it tried to disable a bunch of eslint rules for me calling them "overly stylistic". No, sorry, not good enough, go back to talking to yourself until its done properly. It eventually got there.
Yes, sort of. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Fuzzing yields tons of trash results, the occasional fleck of gold and the even more rare nugget. Then you analyze how it found the flakes and nuggets update your fuzzing harness. Every so often you get to write a paper or give a talk about a breakthrough to share meaningful improvements.
Current AI isn't super effective at making the breakthroughs, but it sure is effective at democratizing the ones you can point it at.
Before you would ever get to a point where someone claiming your work was AI would be able to get access to your computer, editor, family/friends, etc there would need to be a bar that needs to be cleared for a judge to allow that discovery to take place.
What I'm asking is what is that bar?
Copyright is going to be assumed by default - in order to break that assumption there needs to be some process... however for all the people who are "concerned" about the copyright status of works that have touched AI I've never seen anyone make a feasable argument on how it would ever practically take place.
I agree, but I do think it makes the book industry more difficult. A flood of books makes it makes it harder for new authors to make it. Just like a new youtuber has a very difficult time. Eventually publishers will turn to AI just to deal with the volume on submissions, and then it will become just like YouTube, where an algorithm decides who wins and loses.
At the same time, readers will have to sift through an insane amount of books to find what they like. It is already kind of like this, even before AI. This causes people to rely more on reviews and word of mouth, which becomes a volume game and is also influenced by the algorithms.
I don't think it is the end times for literature, and for those who put the work in, they can find their places. But it is a whole new set of challenges.
I agree with you, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the NFL is balanced because they tried to make it balanced - the salary cap, draft, revenue sharing, etc. are all outcomes of that plan, not the prime motivators themselves.
I was at a sports stadium last month and I went to get a bottle of water - the whole thing was completely automated. I picked up a bottle of water off the shelf, scanned it and presented my card, no human involved.
I don't think you're committing career suicide. I've seen people get serviceable results out of it, and it always involves reading the code in depth. Reading the code being slower than writing it, they're almost never getting a speed up.
That being said, the better coders I've seen aren't looking for a speed up, they're generally looking for something to bounce ideas off of, or to get a first draft going to defeat writer's block or something (I guess this is technically a speed up, but not the way people mean when they describe slinging tokens around). It's generally to wind up at a better solution at the end than to get a sustained speed up (which seems to only be possible in boilerplate heavy domains, but those were previously slowed down by the boilerplate and are really only coming up to speed with everything else, at significant cost).
> Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used?
Is it being used a tool, or is it being used as a ghostwriter? There is often stigma attached to that when done by humans.
> Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas?
Yes, that used to very much be the case. Now it is often considered a different form or expression, so loses a lot of the stigma mostly by not pretending to be what those looking down on it are comparing it to.
Similar in the debate between CGI and practical effects.
Perhaps if AI-backed authors are willing to have their work classed as a different type of writing they can skip by the comparison-stigma too?
This article seems to confuse lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries. Lithium-ion batteries intercalcate lithium ions into pre-existing electrodes and that doesn't form dendrites. Dendrites are a phenomenon of lithium-metal batteries, where lithium ions tend to be reduced to metal at the tips of the dendrites.
You can get lithium metal forming on lithium-ion electrodes, which could go on to form dendrites, but the failure there is the metal formation, not the dendrite formation.
I've built this as part of a client project. One of the more interesting projects I got to do, even though we kept each component as simple as possible. Very nice composability of backend parts.
