OK, this paper picked my curiosity. The limitations of the experiments makes me wonder if some threshold effects aren't ignored. Still this is a good indication that the question is worth pursuing further.
How shocking! This was all hype? Not surprised since we've seen the referenced papers before, but put all together it makes things really clear.
The arm race is still on-going at a furious pace. Still wondering how messy it will be when this bubble bursts.
Doxxing will get easier and easier. Con men are likely paying attention.
Good article about the ethical implications of using AI in systems. I like the distinction about assistive vs automated. It's not perfect as it underestimates the "asleep at the steering wheel" effects, but this is a good starting point.
If you run the number, we actually can't afford this kind of generative AI arm race. It's completely unsustainable both for training and during use...
This is a short article summarizing a research paper at the surface level. It is clearly the last nail in the coffin for the generative AI grand marketing claims. Of course, I recommend reading the actual research paper (link at the end) but if you prefer this very short form, here it is. It's clearly time to go back to the initial goals of the AI field: understanding cognition. The latest industrial trends tend to confuse too much the map with the territory.
Or why we shouldn't trust marketing survey... they definitely confuse perception and actual results. Worse they do it on purpose.
Unsurprisingly the productivity gains announced for coding assistants have been greatly exaggerated. There might be cases of strong gains but it's still unclear in which niches this is going to happen.
Maybe extrapolating a bit more than it should. Still this leads to worrying uses of AI generated images.
I definitely agree with this. I'm sick of the grand claims around what is essentially a parlor trick. Could we tone down the marketing enough so that we can properly think about making useful products again?
They're trying a come back... of course they added layers of security to pretend it's all solved and shiny. They totally ignore the social implications or if something like this even needs to be done. At least one can remove it... for now...
People are putting LLM related feature out there too hastily for my taste. At least they should keep in mind the security and safety implications.
This is clearly less high profile than the Scarlett Johanssen vs OpenAI one. Still this shows it has the potential to become a widespread (even though shady) practice. This might need some regulation fairly soon.
This is indeed important to be able to run such models locally. Will still require more optimization but it's slowly getting there. The reproducibility it brings is especially necessary for science.
This is a very harsh and bleak view on the current generative AI craze. Clearly it survives on some sort of weird faith that things will magically improve. Some decision makers clearly run fully on said faith and lost all kind of realistic view of the situation. They are just very disconnected from the user's needs.
There's even a funny quote in there: "Generative AI must seem kind of magical when your entire life is either being in a meeting or reading an email".
When this bubble bursts, it's hard to predict what the fallout will be on the tech industry... for sure it won't be pretty. It also begs the question: what is this industry going to do next? There's clearly no plan after generative AI.
Need to illustrate how much the current AI arm race is an ecological and social problem? Here is a very pathological case. This is what you get when you let the tycoons behind this completely unchecked.
This is bad. There was no way to know the book was AI generated and clearly it contained errors and lies.
Does a good job listing the main myths the marketing around generative AI is built on. Don't fall for the marketing, exert critical thinking and rely on real properties of those systems.
An excellent essay about generative AI and art. Goes deep in the topic and explains very well how you can hardly make art with those tools. It's just too remote from how they work. I also particularly like the distinction between skill and intelligence. Indeed, we can make highly skilled but not intelligent systems using this technology.