riskable

joined 3 years ago
[–] riskable@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

If you think any more than 0.1% of these physical books would ever have ended up in antique bookstores, you're dreaming.

Think about how many books out there are things like Donald Trump's biography, or pointless drivel from non-experts, self-help books that tell people to down "essential oils", old editions of programming books, or just plain shitty fiction that never sold much in the first place.

It's ok to throw trash away! Really!

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That's like saying, "they had some failure modes from the synthetic data, so they should just obviously stop trying forever."

They'll just fix the edge cases and move on. Like any programming task.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes. That does make sense.

If you bought a book, scanned it—destroying it in the process—then read it on your computer, that would be completely acceptable.

Why is it wrong when a corporation does the same thing?

They're not claiming ownership of the copyrights, just ownership of a copy. Which is how copyright works.

[–] riskable@programming.dev -2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Big AI mostly switched to synthetic training data anyway. The books they're digitizing are being used to gather knowledge, not writing styles or logic (mostly).

As in, when you ask ChatGPT how long some book is, it can just go check (if it's in the database). It's also useful if you ask about that book or about knowledge contained in that book. It'll even reference books now (if you demand that in your prompt).

It's not the same as earlier LLM tech which relied on scanned text to figure out how to respond to any given prompt (from a language standpoint). The "language" part of LLMs is a solved problem now (thanks to the synthetic training). At least for English 🤷

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While I sort of agree with you that that is his angle, service jobs that aren't easily automatable will continue to climb in the "job stability and pay rate" category until the world figures out how to deal with Baumol's Cost Disease:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The AI paradox: It's both original (hallucinating) and plagiarizing (copying things, word-for-word).

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Assume all the big AI firms die: Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and Meta. Poof! They're gone!

Here would be my reaction: "So anyway... have you tried GLM-7? It's amazing! Also, there's a new workflow in ComfyUI I've been using that works great to generate..."

Generative AI is here to stay. You don't need a trillion dollars worth of data centers for progress to continue. That's just billionaires living in an AGI fantasy land.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Either a lot more tools got a lot better,

That's what it was. Even the free, open source models are vastly superior to the best of the best from just a year ago.

People got into their heads that AI is shit when it was shit and decided at that moment that it was going to be stuck in that state forever. They forget that AI is just software and software usually gets better over time. Especially open source software which is what all the big AI vendors are building their tools on top of.

We're still in the infancy of generative AI.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Whoah there: Who says AI influencers aren't the result of individual's honest work? You don't need an entire data center of computers to make your own AI influencer!

Don't assume there's a corporation behind every AI persona. It could just be one guy with a lot of VRAM getting creative with prompts in his parent's basement.

view more: ‹ prev next ›