> They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads
The people who created the tech and the ones that use it for ads in this case are two different groups - the first one is from Google (initial discovery) and OpenAI (realizing the potential of discovery and developing it into a product), whereas the second is the same company that decided that building ads into an operating system is an excellent idea.
But remote account is just one of the many evils they cane up in the last decade or so. Honestly, not sure if the net benefit for humanity is negative if Windows gradually disappears.
> You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake
This is quite clear for younger people who grew in an interconnected world. But some old folks (73 y.o., 79 y.o.) seem to live in the old world where winning, or an illusion of it, is still a thing.
That word "Interconnected" is very important. As it's not an age thing, since many young folks may still think this way. It's an education thing. Uneducated/unconnected people are unable to appropriately interpret the world and the events that happen within it as they have not learned about or experienced similar situations and their outcomes/consequences.
I generally agree, but this time his VP isn't going to defect and he's been building ICE into a republican guard loyal only to him, so I think you can't just completely say "well it failed last time so it'll fail again"
Yep, might not have liked a lot of what Mike Pence stood for but he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views.
Vance however, I dont see much of that in action. But time will tell. Folks like to think it is a quiet conspiracy but every time you get a glimpse inside workings of government, if feels like they hate each other more than the next guy, regardless of who is in power.
> he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views.
eh I'm not really going to agree with you on this. He flinched 1 millimeter away from committing a full coup. That's not really a positive vote, it's just not as negative as it could be.
I'm very happy to say calculators are far better than me in calculations (to a given precision). I'm happy to admit computers are so much better than me in so many aspects. And I have problem saying LLMs are very helpful tools able to generate output so much better than mine in almost every field of knowledge.
Yet, whenever I ask it to do something novel or creative, it falls very short. But humans are ingenious beasts and I'm sure or later they will design an architecture able to be creative - I just doubt it will be Transformer-based, given the results so far.
But the question isn't whether you can get LLMs to do something novel, it's whether anyone can get them to do something novel. Apparently someone can, and the fact that you can't doesn't mean LLMs aren't good for that.
Novel is a tricky word. In this case, the LLM produced a python program that was similar to other programs in its corpus, and this oython program generated examples of hypergraphs that hadn't been seen before.
That's a new result, but I don't know about novel. The technique was the same as earlier work in this vein. And it seems like not much computational power was needed at all. (The article mentions that an undergrad left a laptop running overnight to produce one of the previous results, that's absolute peanuts when compared to most computational research).
If all art is derivative then the earlier statement is a tautology.
People still call things other people do novel. There's clear social proof that humans do things that other humans consider novel.
Otherwise the word would probably not exist.
Just today I wrote a python program that did not resemble anything I'd written before, nor had I seen anything similar.
I had to reason it out myself. That passes thr test that the original comment set.
Your threshold for "resemble" is obviously quite high, which is fair, but assuming that you're an encultured programmer your python code represents other people's python code. It might be doing something novel, but that thing it's doing is interacting or in response to, or otherwise relative to existing concepts you learned or saw elsewhere. All art is derivative, we can do things other people haven't done before but all of it derives from the works of others in some way.
Anyway, I've coded all kinds of wacky shit with claude that I guarantee nobody has implemented before, if only because they're stupid and tedious ideas. They can't all be winners, but they were novel, and yet claude code implemented them as confidently as if they were yet another note taking app. They have no problem handling novel ideas, and although the novel ideas in this case were my own, its easy to see how finding new ideas could be automated by exploring the combinatorial space of existing ideas.
I'm not talking about wacky. My barrier for novel is 1) new capabilities 2) useful, and 3) end-to-end tested.
For example, what I refered to that I've written is a dynamic storage solution for n-dimensional grids, that can grow arbitrarily in any direction, and is locally dense (organized into spatially indexed blocks of contiguous data).
I had never considered this problem before, and I certainly had never seen a solution before (even though there may well be one).
I worked it out on paper, considering how integer lattices can be partitioned and indexed, and then I transformed that into a design which I then implemented. Working purely from the design, not considering existing solutions.
When it comes to LLMs doing novel things, is it just the infinite monkey theorem[0] playing out at an accelerated rate, helped along by the key presses not being truly random?
Surely if we tell the LLM to do enough stuff, something will look novel, but how much confirmation bias is at play? Tens of millions of people are using AI and the biggest complaint is hallucinations. From the LLMs perspective, is there any difference between a novel solution and a hallucination, other than dumb luck of the hallucination being right?
This argument doesn't go the way you want it to go. Billions of people exist, but maybe a few tens of thousands produce novel knowledge. That's a much worse rate than LLMs.
I’m not sure how we equate the number of humans to AI to determine a success rate.
We also can’t ignore than it was humans who thought up this problem to give to the AI. Thinking has two parts, asking and answering questions. The AI needed the human to formulate and ask the question to start. AI isn’t just dropping random discoveries on us that we haven’t even thought of, at least not that I’ve seen.
To have a proper discussion we would have to define the word "novel" and that's a challenge in itself. In any case, millions of poeple tried to ask LLMs to do something creative and the results were bland. Hence my conclusion LLMs aren't good for that. But I'm also open they can be an element of a longer chain that could demonstrate some creativity - we'll see.
While I agree with you in general, I am one of the very few people who do it for the small amount of sites I support. This is not a smart decision from the technical point of view but it's been fine so far.
It's true, they lied. But, paradoxically, in this case, while they lied about details, the conclusion is still true: Azure is very far from AWS and GCP as far as security is concerned. I have my own suspicions why it is so, but the reasons are not important, what counts is the final conclusion: if you really care for security, you'd better chose one of the other two.
Azure looks worse right now. AWS and GCP still ship plenty of auth bugs, bad defaults, and policy footguns, so if you care about securty the sane move is to assume every cloud will fail in ways the marketing page forgot to mention and build your controls around that, not around a brand ranking.
Well, yeah, their agenda is reporting on fraud and illegal actions. If you do more fraud or illegal actions, you will have more stories about you. Trump does more fraud and illegal actions, objectively. If you’re a Trump supporter, reality may make you sad and angry when in conflict with the mental model.
I don’t mind pension bailouts, compared to tax cuts for the very wealthy and unnecessary military action in the Middle East (which has cost ~$50B as of this comment). Compare the costs.
Teamsters members in a majority voted for Trump. Google it. Biden helped people who didn’t value it. You blame Biden for “buying support” when it didn’t help Democrats; he did it because it was the right thing to do to protect the retirement promises made to union workers.
Can’t fix uneducated, unsophisticated voters I suppose.
I’m not arguing the merits of the policy. I’m arguing that if the Big Beautiful Bill contained a $70B slush fund for the administration to hand out to its tech buddies, ProPublica would have gone wall to wall.
Finally someone competent to answer the crucial question. Taken into account the enormous amount of excellent work you did, and the fact that dev tools are hard to monetize, what was your strategy?
Are you going to join codex team as well? I am curious about how the codex code base will evolve after you guys joined. It is going to affect Python/Rust toolchains tremendously.
The people who created the tech and the ones that use it for ads in this case are two different groups - the first one is from Google (initial discovery) and OpenAI (realizing the potential of discovery and developing it into a product), whereas the second is the same company that decided that building ads into an operating system is an excellent idea.
reply