Either way it's a circus of incompetence.
zogwarg
joined 2 years ago
Absolutely this, shuf would easily come up in a normal google search (even in googles deteriorated relevancy).
For fun, "two" lines of bash + jq can easily achieve the result even without shuf (yes I know this is pointlessly stupid)
cat /usr/share/dict/words | jq -R > words.json
cat /dev/urandom | od -A n -D | jq -r -n '
import "words" as $w;
($w | length) as $l |
label $out | foreach ( inputs * $l / 4294967295 | floor ) as $r (
{i:0,a:[]} ;
.i = (if .a[$r] then .i else .i + 1 end) | .a[$r] = true ;
if .i > 100 then break $out else $w[$r] end
)
'
Incidentally this is code that ChatGPT would be utterly incapable of producing, even as toy example but niche use of jq.
Fair enough, I will note he fails to specify the actual car to Remote Assistance operator ratio. Here's to hoping that the burstiness readiness staff is not paid pennies when on "stand-by".
It makes you wonder about the specifics:
- Did the 1.5 workers assigned for each car mostly handle issues with the same cars?
- Was it a big random pool?
- Or did each worker have their geographic area with known issues ?
Maybe they could have solved context issues and possible latency issues by seating the workers in the cars, and for extra quick intervention speed put them in the driver's seat. Revolutionary. (Shamelessly stealing adam something's joke format about trains)
The fact that “artificial intelligence” suggests any form of quality is already a paradox in itself ^^. Would you want to eat an artificial potato? The smokes and mirrors should be baked in.
^^ Quietly progressing from humans are not the only ones able to do true learning, to machines are the only ones capable of true learning.
Poetic.
PS: Eek at the *cough* extrapolation rules lawyering 😬.
Not even that! It looks like a blurry jpeg of those sources if you squint a little!
Also I’ve sort of realized that the visualization is misleading in three ways:
- They provide an animation from shallow to deep layers to show the dots coming together, making the final result more impressive than it is (look at how many dots are in the ocean)
- You see blobby clouds over sub-continents, with nothing to gauge error within the cloud blobs.
- Sorta-relevant but obviously the borders as helpfully drawn for the viewer to conform to “Our” world knowledge aren’t even there at all, it’s still holding up a mirror (dare I say a parrot?) to our cognition.
~~Brawndo~~ Blockchain has got what ~~plants~~ LLMs crave, it's got ~~electrolytes~~ ledgers.
That's the dangerous part:
- The LLM being just about convincing enough
- The language being unfamiliar
....................................................
You have no way of judging how correct or how wrong the output is, and no one to hold responsible or be a guarantor.
With the recent release of the heygen drag-drop tool for video translating, and lip-syncing tool, I saw enough people say: "Look isn't it amazing, I can speak Italian now"
No, something makes look like you can, and you have no way of judging how convincing the illusion is. Even if the output is convincing/bluffing to a native speaker, you still can't immediately check that the translation is correct. And again no one to hold accountable.
I said I wouldn't be confident about it, not that enshitification would not occur ^^.
I oscillate between optimisim and pessimism frequently, and for sure ~~some~~ many companies will make bad doo doo decisions. Ultimately trying to learn the grift is not the answer for me though, I'd rather work for some company with at least some practical sense and pretense at an attempt of some form of sustainability.
The mood comes, please forgive the following, indulgent, poem:
Worse before better
Yet comes the AI winter
Ousting the fever
One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.
There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.
Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)