It'll be interesting to see where this complaint goes.

Excellent piece from an excellent artist. I really thought this through and I think he's going in the right direction.

Very comprehensive (didn't read it all yet) guide about self-supervised learning. It'll likely become good reference material.

It smells a bit like hypocrisy isn't it? On one hand they claim it can make developers more productive on the other they think they shouldn't use it.

Oh the bad feedback loop this introduces... this clearly poison the well of AI training when it goes through such platforms.

Looks like an interesting tool to run LLMs on your own hardware.

Maybe it's time to make so called "reinforcement learning from human feedback" actually humane? It's not the first account along those lines in the industry.

Interesting ideas for using large language models. There is a world beyond the chatbot interface and it might bring more value to users and avoid some of the pitfalls of anthropomorphisation.

Nice piece which shows how easy it is to get such models to produce nonsense.

This is looking like a bad move. Clearly the fault of western countries though which let things unfold ambiguously regarding copyright... Now Japan is weakening copyright for everyone.

So close... and still. This is clearly still in the uncanny valley department at times.

This is early research of course but still the results are interesting. Once again, we're much easier to influence than we'd like.

Very good interview. She really point out the main issues. Quite a lot of the current debate is poisoned by simplistic extrapolations based on sci-fi. This distracts everyone from the very real and present problems.

Looks like a promising way to reduce the training cost of large language models.

And yet another set of open source models. This is really democratizing quickly.

Truly open source models are pouring in. This is showing more transparency and I hope it will lead to better uses even though some of the concerns will stay true.

Excellent opinion piece. Sure, "A.I." is a tool, but who is wielding that tool currently? Whom needs is it designed to fulfill? This is currently very much of a problem. The comparison with McKinsey although surprising is an interesting thought.

Also I appreciate the clarification on the Luddites movement... they were not anti-technology.

Interesting experiment even though it's still early days for this kind of research and we'd need more such evaluations. They found that it produces mostly insecure code. This is not really surprising in the end, this manipulates language but has not execution model. It can be fixed only by coupling to some outside system.

Are we surprised? Not at all... this is an ethical problem, this is a legal risk. The alternatives will hopefully know better.

OK, this is a pre-print so to take with a truckload of salt. If further nice results get built up on this it could turn out interesting though. This is a much more intellectually satisfying approach than the current arm race of "let's throw bigger models at the problem". This has the potentially of reducing the computational complexity of those models, this is definitely welcome in term of energy and hardware requirements. Let's wait and see...