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.

The arm race is still on-going at a furious pace. Still wondering how messy it will be when this bubble bursts.

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.

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?

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.

Looks like an interesting venue to attack systems which use LLMs.

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.

Interesting musing. The predictability in tone doesn't make for very funny content indeed. Also as a side-effect this might help people remember that Markov chain are a thing and much less expensive.

If you're wondering what people do with chat bots, there are some clues here.

This ought to be easier, this should help a bit.

More discussion about models collapse. The provenance of data will become a crucial factor to our ability to train further models.

Still not perfect, but that's an interesting development.

Content creators are clearly annoyed at the lack of consent. The more technical ones are trying to take the matter in their own hands.