I don't think I said that. You seem to be setting up a(nother) false dichotomy here as if there can only be one end of the spectrum or the other, with no grey area or nuance in-between.
I love it when people refuse to follow the logical conclusion of their own argument and then act like they are being clever when they stonewall with that logical conclusion without realizing what they just did.
You have fallen into the trap of thinking that government bodies tasked with such things should be providing you a customer service -- but they are providing society with a customer service and you are treated as a road would be treated by the government, not as a driver would be treated.
Note: by 'you' I mean if you were in the position of a regulated entity.
I'm really, really glad I've never spent hours of my time standing up a website dedicated to meticulously and condescendingly criticizing the ideas of others. What a waste of energy.
You do you, but I find sites like this a nice antidote to the opposite, which seems to be the norm these days.
Sites like https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ I find not only amusing, but interesting and informative. The author was on Michael Lewis' recent podcast, and she was quite interesting as well.
The difference is that the AI site is criticizing people who have sinned by "hyping" AI in the most pathetic way possible, and the web3 site is documenting very real events.
On the contrary, it often takes more effort to identify and call out bullshit* than it does to create it, so I think this is noble work (at least in theory - of course the "call out" could also be bullshit).
It’s a lot of typing but I really don’t see a huge amount of effort in the reviews of the news articles on that site. Once in a while they provide a better article but mostly they just quote chunks of text and say they are wrong. That doesn’t strike me as a lot of effort.
It’s their site they can do what they wish, more or less effort.
I don’t doubt countering bs can be huge amount of work, but I’m not sure that site and the Wikipedia idea are quite the same.
Except ML isn't bullshit. The proof is in the pudding. Yes, some people may overhype the positives of it, and maybe it is just my bubble, but I see far more people overhyping the negatives of it. Having a balanced approach to calling out overhyping in both directions would lend more credibility to their organization. Currently they just look like 21st century luddites.
True, it's the new COVID super-contagious variant paranoia. Almost all of which ignored the well established tendencies of viruses to evolve into more contagious, and less dangerous forms. It's this sort of nonsense that allows Trump to say the media is sh*t, and be somewhat truthful.
It feels like this attitude has become pervasive and it is not always good. Sure supporting people is great, but the unfortunate reality is that most new ideas are bad.
Recently I have been trying to find critical views around topics I am researching, especially in the business world. Weird thing is for every 10-20 positive articles I am lucky if I find 1 negative article. These are not math/programmings topics where there is potentially a definitive answer. It's around business processes, where in theory everything should have pros and cons.
I think we have gone through a phase of supporting every idea and not letting alternate views surface. I for one support a dose of cynicism around any hyped up new idea. Only time will tell who is right or wrong. At that point the winning side can gloat.
The condescending tone may be a problem in certain few cases, I agree, but you aren't seriously defending every rando 'tech columnist' spreading, as well as celebrating it, sensationalist BS about AI making human emotion and intellect obsolete, are you.
Seems like big hypes generate a corresponding, co-dependent anti-hype that thrives off generating negativity around the hype (see Donald Trump as 45th President of the USA, Cryptocurrencies, young people discovering sex, etc.). Loud personalities appear in both sides. Les extrêmes se touchent.
Don’t fall into the "neutrality" trap, though. If a lot of people are loudly in favor of drinking the Kool-Aid and a lot of other people are loudly against drinking the Kool-Aid, the neutral, rational thing to do is not to drink half a cup of the Kool-Aid.
Yes, that is a very good point and I like that extension of the Kool-Aid analogy. I didn't mean to make it seem like neutrality is the way to go. We should definitely take an educated position even if we end up agreeing with one of the loud sides. I think what was trying to get it is they act to fuel each other and it causes distractions.
I haven't seen any [serious] takedowns about snake oil so "the existence of" test has failed !
I'm using LLMs daily and they've radically improved my productivity at all sorts of tasks - the secret is to use them like junior <x> and of course review and edit their output.
Claims made in a leaked blog post shouldn't be considered as having any sort of scientific authority. That whole "no moat" piece has exactly the tone I would expect from an over-confident Googler who has essentially been following all of this by watching various Discord channels and browsing hacker news. That isn't how science is done. It shouldn't be how business is done, but people seem to really enjoy these everything-is-actually-simple narratives.
That claim wasn't sourced from the Google has no moat paper, but from the announcement for Vicuna-13B if I recall (or some other similar model). It shouldn't be taken as an independent quality assessment
Could you explain what other choices were red flags for you? I’m somewhat familiar with the open source LLMs space but not enough to know why some choices are better than others.
Modern appliances are designed with parts that fail easily and are just slightly too difficult, or dangerous, enough to repair on your own. Usually it's a plastic connector of some sort that will have an easily calculable time-to-disintegration measured in years.
For instance, I just fixed a 2c plastic clip that pretty much made my microwave unusable by virtue of the door being un-openable. In order to do so, I had to have my fingers about 3 inches away from a bare wire transformer which near totally obstructs what should be a very simple fix.
Plenty scary and dangerous enough for me to have to call the manufacturer and find a certified local repairer...
Not quite the same, but available on nuget- 'fluentAssertions' gives you something akin to this. I've had decent success with having our juniors use it vs less verbose assertion libraries. I don't know about evaluating individual expressions in a line separately, but it does give you clean syntax and similar error messages that are very readable-
