The logic that something sounds worse simply by combining dissonant notes is questionable, because music constantly combines elements—notes, chords, even different rhythms—without that necessarily implying displeasure for the listener. Convincing.
In the 00s, I sang in the Holy Name Cathedral choir and we did a lot of 20th/21st century choral works with harmonies that strayed very far from the classical tonal vocabulary to the point where when I was doing my own composition work, I realized that I didn’t hear dissonance any more.
That's why it's questionable, because it's subjective. It would be factual to find the keys to determine what sounds "worse" across the majority of subjective opinions, independent of culture and personal taste.
The rapid evolution of AI has made AI-generated misinformation and disinformation a serious risk. An international consortium led by a major Japanese IT company is working to build a trustworthy foundation for society.
Excellent optimization technique: manually copying objects to a new slice so they don't prevent the GC from releasing memory by sitting right in the middle of a page it intends to free.
Of course, but Go's GC doesn't compact or relocate the objects still in use in the middle of a page (which means that page can't be released to the OS) until you manually copy those surviving objects out, freeing up the page they left behind.
It's crazy to avoid AI entirely, and it's just as crazy to use it where you shouldn't. And that third kind of crazy: getting accused of using AI in something that never needed it (and never had it) just because the results look like it did.
The point is not that the models aren’t capable of doing something vaguely like this. The point is that the way it’s being characterized is almost certainly false to the point of absurdity, particularly the way in which intent is ascribed to the models to an almost superstitious degree, which is actually designed to exploit superstition in the audience.
The model almost certainly simply did some variation on what it was instructed to do. The threat with AI is from the people using it, not from the models themselves.
Yeah to me it just appears like OpenAI imitating Anthropic’s marketing strategy. “Our model is so smart it’s dangerous” is effective, and potentially the real intended audience is regulators who they want to be afraid of AI and OpenAI and Anthropic want to position themselves as responsible shepherds.
Another point of view, 'Be skeptical of OpenAI’s rogue hacker agent story' — I appreciate it. It's just like saying: 'A man starts a war, and then loudly claims that his weapons are better than the ones he attacked, just to sell his weapons.'
Proper Tail Calls were implemented behind experimental flags but never shipped by default — the flags were later removed.
reply