As usual, there’s no factual basis for the claims other than “I made it up” and author doesn’t seem to have technical experience with ML experience. A lot of weasel words doing all the heavy lifting here.
Well, since all LLM companies are very secretive about their finances, the only public information from them about their revenues or profits or liabilities are as the top commenter said are without any "factual basis for the claims other than “I made it up”" and their CEOs are seemingly not very well versed in ML judging by their public statements and usually use a lot of weasel words themselves. So my comment was a joke, that it is rather hard to distinguish who is making stuff up - LLM corporations defenders or critics :) .
And yet the crazy thing is that this stuff is par for the course human-wise and yet HN continues to rise up with pitchforks in hand complaining that ai is going to replace whatever this is. Like we're losing something.
Because by definition, sapience is something only humans have. Ergo, parrots are not sapient.
More meta, all of the threads on this page are just people playing games with definitions. Eg, “qualia is something I have as a human but machines don’t have it. Therefore, LLMs do not have qualia.”
You're confused about the etymology. Homo Sapiens was coined in the 1800s. People have been saying "sapient" since the 1300s, and it is rooted from the Latin word "sapientem" which simply means "sensible; shrewd, knowing, discrete". Homo Sapiens just means "wise human", and we humbly bestowed the name upon ourselves.
> More meta, all of the threads on this page are just people playing games with definitions. Eg, “qualia is something I have as a human but machines don’t have it. Therefore, LLMs do not have qualia.”
True. For me, the actual interesting debate is not if LLMs are intelligent or not (easy to dismiss) but to what extent LLMs embed into our socio-techno-economic reality.
The set of tokens is learned, more or less. So I don’t get what point you’re trying to make here. There’s not a human manually deciding what tokens make up the token dictionary.
Photographers have already delegated their art to pushing buttons on a machine. They are the most receptive to AI tools, but not representative of artists in general.
> I supported Polymarket for years because I believed they represented crypto values.
>
> In fact, their platform is simply another bucketshop where if you bet too much, you're going to get cleaned.
Please, tell me more about these “crypto values”. Are they values like, “no regulations,” “rug pulls,” “funding ransomware”?
Huh. Crypto values always have been that code is law. In the case of this prediction market, the resolution is not strictly controlled by code. It is not a decentralized system and it does not espouse crypto values.
heavy metal music, television, radio, Harry Potter books, females not covered in clothing head to toe, the lack of a good Christian upbringing, rap music, the banning of corporal punishment, being made aware of the existence of homosexuality, sex education in schools, the legalisation of abortion, open borders, a visit to Europe, proximity to wind farms, divorce, witches.
At the end of the article, the main guy says he wants tech companies to report your conversations to the authorities if bad content is detected. That’s their goal, apparently
Effective politicians (which SA is) have by now realized that every tragedy is an opportunity to convince people to give away their rights for the vague notion of safety, as defined by them.
> Don’t be fooled, they already 100% do that if you use any of these products.
Just to clarify for anyone not paying attention -- Anthropic has written postmortems detailing their Claude Code monitoring and how they "coordinated with authorities" as they "gathered actionable intelligence" from users creating bad content [0].
Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention. Sensitive queries can undoubtedly end up flagged and eventually in front of a human, apparently with the capability to then explore all other submissions from you.
>Not sure how this doesn’t seem to get more attention
Because it's obvious? Any interaction on the cloud = someone else's computer has 0 expectation of privacy. Are we next gonna pretend being shocked that google queries aren't private.
Anecdotally, my sister has become addicted to Copilot and uses it to replace face-to-face communication. I suspect she is not the first, nor even in the first million to become addicted to it.
There's no legal privacy such as doctor-patient confidentiality or lawyer-client confidentiality. It would not surprise me that people want some sort of guardrails protecting the public from recipes-to-do-evil. Based on how much pushback the AI industry has been doing in response to guardrails about hate speech or porn, I expect this to be fought to the death by the AI industry.
I struggle so much with what the allure is for using a chatbot for companionship and I've dealt with loneliness before. Then again I struggle to understand how people become fixated on celebrities or adult actors.
Either one seems so glaringly artificial and transactional it'd be more depressing than loneliness.
I think the allure is similar to why older people are far more susceptible to pig-butchering or romance scams. I think that in her case, Copilot is a replacement for the lack of attention she cannot get in real life. I have repeatedly told her that I am not able to give her the attention she wants/needs.
People 50 years ago would laugh at the irony of that statement, being made here on what we call the internet. Real life will never be digital, and yet here we are, talking to anonymous strangers many of whom are not actual people.
I considered this too but I didn't think it too ironic considering anonymous pen pals have been a thing since the 20th century at least. Obviously the technology would amaze, but the concept would be understandable and appreciated.
reply