aiccount

I think having it give direct quotes and specific sources would help your experience quite a bit. I absolutely agree that if just use the simplest forms of current LLMs and the "hello world" agent setups that there are hallucination issues and such, but lots of this is no longer an issue when you get deeper into it. It's just a matter of time until the stuff that most people can easily use will have this stuff baked in, it isn't anything that is impossible. I mean, I pretty much always have my agents tell me exactly where they get all their information from. The exception is when I have them writing code because there the proof is in the results.

It is hilarious to see you try to take the moral high ground on anyone. You can not begin to grasp what moral behavior is.

There is a very good reason why you can't even attempt to explain your justification for factory farms and all you can do it say "...aka the dumbest take".

You have no moral justification, all you have is childish selfishness with no regard for anyone but yourself. Your entire life has lead up to the best you can do is try to tear down compationate people because you think it will give you a temporary feeling of not being disgusting.

You could do better, but first you need to at least want to develop will power and self control. I hope for your sake that you never have to experience the hell that you so giddily inflict on others.

Most positive use cases are agent-based and the average user doesn't have access to good agent-based systems yet because it requires a bit of willingness to do some "coding". This will soon not be the case though. I can give my crew of AI agents a mission, for example, "find all the papers on baby owl vocalizations and make 10 different charts of the frequency range relative to their average size after each of their first 10 weeks of life", and come back an hour later and have something that would have been 100 hours for a grad student just last year. Right now I have to wait an hour or so, soon it will be instant.

The real usefulness of these agents today is enormous, it is just outside of the view of many average people because their normal lives don't require this kind of power.

Yeah, it's trajectory thing. Most people see the one-shot responses of something like the chatgpt's current web interface on openai's website and they think that's where we are at. It isn't though, the cutting edge of just what is currently openly available to people is things like CrewAI or Autogen using agents powered by things like Claude Opus or Llama 3, and maybe the latest gpt4 update.

When you use agents you don't have to baby every response, the agents can run code, test code, check latest information on the internet, and more. This way you can give a complex instruction, let it run and come back to a finished product.

I say it is a trajectory thing because when you compare what was cutting-edge just 1 year ago, basically one-shot gpt3.5 to an agent network with today's latest models, the difference is stark, and when you go a couple years before that to gpt2, it is way beyond stark. When you go a step further and realise that there is lots of custom hardware being built(basically llm ASICs-traditionally a ~10,000x speedup over general use gpus), you can see that soon having instant agent based responses will be the norm.

All this compounds when you consider that we have not hit a plateau and that we are still seeing that better datasets, and more compute, are still producing better models. Not to mention that other architectures, like state-based Mamba, are making remarkable achievements with very little compute so far. We have no idea how powerful thinks like Mamba would be if they were given the datasets and training that the current popular models are being given.

Imagine you go over to someone's house, and as soon as you walk in, you get overwhelmed by the smell of feces. You walk into the living room, and there is a dog in a cage that it barely fits into. The cage is so tight around its body that it is unable to turn around. You realise there are inches of fecal sludge caked into the bottom of the entire cage. Upon close inspection, you realise that the teeth of the dog have been removed. You are told that by removing the teeth, it can't bite. You ask how it doesn't get so sick that it dies, and you are shown a handful of pills that it is given that fight off its infections and diseases.

You are absolutely disgusted, and you rightfully say so. The response of the owner is this, "This is the same tired argument of 'Nobody can have pets!' That always gets brought up."

This is exactly what you just did.

I never said anything about anyone not being allowed to eat meat, but you have been so conditioned that whenever anyone points out how bad factory farms are, you immediately try to defend them by acting like the only possible way to eat meat is to do it that way. This is not because you are an idiot, it is just because of how clever and motivated the bastards that are doing this to animals are. They are able to convince good-meaning, kind people like yourself to fight on their defense whenever anyone tries to chalange them.

There are many people, now, and all throughout history, that eat meat in a way that is not deplorable, but that way doesn't make large factory farms rich, it doesn't put more money into the billionaires pockets. So, they recruited you, and many others to work for them. They are very smart, and they succeeded.

By the way, I have no idea how you've taken anything Isaid to mean that I think it is OK to machine gun dolphins if you also eat chickens. I never said anything remotely like that. I agree whole-heartedly that that is, indeed, a very dumb take.

This is a really great way to phrase it. I am very curious to see if this difference in phrasing would really be received differently than the more blunt approach, which certainly doesn't seem to work for most people. Hopefully, we will all have AIs soon that can spoon feed anyone who can't connect the dots on their own.

It blows my mind that people can be reminded of the mass slaughter that is happening daily and think that it must somehow be excusing the one-off brutal slaughter of an individual. I always just assume that people hate to be reminded of the implication of their "sustainable" wild caught tuna or whatever.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. About a month ago, I would have said that Suno was clearly leading in AI music generation, but since then, Udio has definitely taken the lead. I can't imagine where things will be by the end of the year, let alone the end of the decade. This is why it's so crazy to me when people look at generative AI and act like it's no big deal and just a passing fad or whatever. They have no idea that there is a tsunami crashing down on us all and they always seem to be the ones that bill themselves as the weather experts who have it all figured out. Nobody knows the implications of this, but it definelty isn't an inconsequential tech.

"A solution in search for a problem" is a phrase used way to much, and almost always in the wrong way. Even in the article it says that it has been solving problems for over a year, it just complains that it isn't solving the biggest problems possible yet. It is remarkable how hard it is for people to extrapolate based on the trajectory. The author of this paper would have been talking about how pointless computers are if they were alive in the early 90s, and how they are just "a solution in search for a problem".

If only they all got simply cut along the superior vena cava. I know it would be great if they all had wonderful happy deaths, but unfortunately they simply don't. For example, anyone who eats factory farm eggs has the fact that countless baby chicks are thrown into blenders while still alive on their conscience. It is great when people show what they think happens on those farms because it gives opportunity for people to point what actually is happening. Hopefully, more interactions like this will help to end the hypocrisy of it all.

Look at all the downvotes I'm getting, people absolutely leach onto anything that makes them feel the bad people are the ones who point out how awful these farms are.

Anybody who gets so triggered and defensive when someone points out how disgusting factory farms are doesn't have a diet that they are proud of. Whether your cognitive dissonance allows you to acknowledge that or not is a different story.