And, after the end of the AI boom, do we really know what wealthy investors are going to do with the money they cannot throw at startups anymore? Can we be sure they won't be using it to fund lawsuits over alleged copyright infringements instead?
HedyL
joined 2 years ago
At the very least, many of them were probably unable to differentiate between "coding problems that have been solved a million times and are therefore in the training data" and "coding problems that are specific to a particular situation". I'm not a software developer myself, but that's my best guess.
Even the idea of having to use credits to (maybe?) fix some of these errors seems insulting to me. If something like this had been created by a human, the customer would be eligible for a refund.
Yet, under Aron Peterson's LinkedIn posts about these video clips, you can find the usual comments about him being "a Luddite", being "in denial" etc.
It is funny how, when generating the code, it suddenly appears to have "understood" what the instruction "The dog can not be left unattended" means, while that was clearly not the case for the natural language output.
FWIW, due to recent developments, I've found myself increasingly turning to non-search engine sources for reliable web links, such as Wikipedia source lists, blog posts, podcast notes or even Reddit. This almost feels like a return to the early days of the internet, just in reverse and - sadly - with little hope for improvement in the future.
Google has a market cap of about 2.1 trillion dollars. Therefore the stock price only has to go up by about 0,00007 percent following the iNaturalist announcement for this "investment" to pay off. Of course, this is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but maybe popular charities should keep this in mind before accepting money in a context like this.
Also, if the LLM had reasoning capabilities that even remotely resembled those of an actual human, let alone someone who would be able to replace office workers, wouldn't they use the best tool they had available for every task (especially in a case as clear-cut as this)? After all, almost all humans (even children) would automatically reach for their pocket calculators here, I assume.
Also, these bots have been deliberately fine-tuned in a way that is supposed to sound human. Sometimes, as a consequence, I find it difficult to describe their answering style without employing vocabulary used to describe human behavior. Also, I strongly suspect that this deliberate "human-like" style is a key reason for the current AI hype. It is why many people appear to excuse the bots' huge shortcomings. It is funny to be accused of being "emotional" when pointing out these patterns as problematic.
Also, a lawnmower is unlikely to say: "Sure, I am happy to take you to work" and "I am satisfied with my performance" afterwards. That's why I sometimes find these bots' pretentious demeanor worse than their functional shortcomings.
As usual with chatbots, I'm not sure whether it is the wrongness of the answer itself that bothers me most or the self-confidence with which said answer is presented. I think it is the latter, because I suspect that is why so many people don't question wrong answers (especially when they're harder to check than a simple calculation).
LOL - you might not want to believe that, but there is nothing to cut down. I actively steer clear of LLMs because I find them repulsive (being so confidently wrong almost all the time).
Nevertheless, there will probably be some people who claim that thanks to LLMs we no longer need the skills for language processing, working memory, or creative writing, because LLMs can do all of this much better than humans (just like calculators can calculate a square root faster). I think that's bullshit, because LLMs just aren't capable of doing any of these things in a meaningful way.
And there might be new "vulture funds" that deliberately buy failing software companies simply because they hold some copyright that might be exploitable. If there are convincing legal reasons why this likely won't fly, fine. Otherwise I wouldn't rely on the argument that "this is a theoretical possibility, but who would ever do such a thing?"