the thing that bothers me about that lecunn statement is that it’s another of those not-even-wrong fuckers with an implicit assumption: that the problem is not that it doesn’t have intelligence, just that the intelligence isn’t very advanced yet - “oh yeah it just didn’t think ahead! that’s why foot in mouth! it’s like your drunk friend at a party!”
which, y’know, is not the case. but they all fucking speak with that implicit foundation, as though the intelligence is proven fact instead of total suggestion (I wanted to say “conjecture”, but that isn’t the right word either)
these must be the multi-agent models that AI fans won’t shut the fuck up about now that multi-modal LLMs are here and disappointing. is it just me or does the use case for this sound fucking stupid?
it’s also the pitch I keep seeing from a number of places, including that rabbit or whatever the fuck thing? and, frankly, can we not? these goddamn things can barely parse sentences and keep context, and someone wants to tell me that a model use is for it to plan my travel? with visas and flight times and transfers? nevermind all the extra implications of accounting for real-world issues (e.g. political sensitivity), preferences in sight-seeing, data privacy considerations (visiting friends)…
like it’s just a gigantic fucking katamari ball of nope
someone wants to tell me that a model use is for it to plan my travel?
I don’t think any of these people have ever traveled. Honestly, I used to work for a company where the corporate travel people mostly lived in a small village in Germany, and their recommendations could be insane sometimes, but at least they knew what being a human was like.
bro, bro. i’m not going to answer your question about the obvious and glaring problems, but here read these three preprints that are very exciting about the possibilities!!! no i can’t just explain in my own words what they say. but if you cannot refute the mathematics (you can tell it’s real maths because it’s got squiggly symbols in it) then you must acquit
the thing that bothers me about that lecunn statement is that it’s another of those not-even-wrong fuckers with an implicit assumption: that the problem is not that it doesn’t have intelligence, just that the intelligence isn’t very advanced yet - “oh yeah it just didn’t think ahead! that’s why foot in mouth! it’s like your drunk friend at a party!”
which, y’know, is not the case. but they all fucking speak with that implicit foundation, as though the intelligence is proven fact instead of total suggestion (I wanted to say “conjecture”, but that isn’t the right word either)
it’s also the pitch I keep seeing from a number of places, including that rabbit or whatever the fuck thing? and, frankly, can we not? these goddamn things can barely parse sentences and keep context, and someone wants to tell me that a model use is for it to plan my travel? with visas and flight times and transfers? nevermind all the extra implications of accounting for real-world issues (e.g. political sensitivity), preferences in sight-seeing, data privacy considerations (visiting friends)…
like it’s just a gigantic fucking katamari ball of nope
I don’t think any of these people have ever traveled. Honestly, I used to work for a company where the corporate travel people mostly lived in a small village in Germany, and their recommendations could be insane sometimes, but at least they knew what being a human was like.
> suggestion
I’d go for “hopium”.
bro, bro. i’m not going to answer your question about the obvious and glaring problems, but here read these three preprints that are very exciting about the possibilities!!! no i can’t just explain in my own words what they say. but if you cannot refute the mathematics (you can tell it’s real maths because it’s got squiggly symbols in it) then you must acquit
if you cannot refute, you must not compute