But the intent behind and manner of the learning is important. Similar to the difference between a chemistry professor delivering a lecture at a university versus someone paid to provide instructions to a known terrorist organization.
TBF a company the size of openai claiming a prize of this sort would be a pretty bad look. If they did accept it I expect they would inevitably redirect it to charity for PR reasons.
I'm surprised perelman turned it down though. Seems straightforward enough to offer half of it to the other guy if you feel strongly about it.
I run this journal that you've never heard of that might interest you. I'd also like to invite you to be an editor, you can put it on your CV of course ...
Not better, just much _much_ more convenient. And it doesn't have to be a frontier lab. I'm happy to ask any oracle that returns sufficiently good results which is an ever increasing number of them.
TBF this is more a browser problem than a website problem to my mind. Redirects shouldn't be handled in such a cavalier manner. I should be able to configure the browser to stop and confirm the destination any time the domain changes without direct user interaction.
I switched to DuckDuckGo around 2018 or so, which was when I realized that Google's results quality has deteriorated so much that I won't lose anything of value by doing so. This thread is how I learn about the atrocities that Google Search is committing these days.
Which is an elaborate way to say: you don't have to live like this.
I don't. At this point I just ask the oracle in natural language. There's so many to choose from. Why spend hours wading through only vaguely related things? You can ask it for a direct answer or you can ask it to teach you about the topic.
Sometimes there is joy in discovering things for yourself. Also, the oracle currently relies on humans publishing new information, what will you do when the incentive is gone and the oracle has nothing to harvest?
> Sometimes there is joy in discovering things for yourself.
Agreed. And webrings still exist in certain corners of the internet.
> the oracle currently relies on humans publishing new information
New? When I ask it how to do something with a piece of software it's perfectly capable of answering me by means of direct interrogation of the source code.
I'll grant you that it owes ~all of its knowledge of the world at large to having been bootstrapped using the more or less complete body of humanity's published works. However I think that was merely the quickest path to bootstrap it as opposed to the only one.
If you use an iphone then yes, apple is indeed "erasing" illegal streaming in the same sense that google is. We can be nostalgic for the old internet while also recognizing that at least google is well within their rights not to serve up results that fall outside the bounds of the law. (Apple not so much. When you gatekeep the hardware platform I think you're ethically obligated to act as a common carrier. Unfortunately the law doesn't require that.)
Overnight? Yes, silly. Given many years of seemingly disconnected actions taken throughout the world? Not silly at all. An intelligence capable of self improvement can also design robotic chassis.
I actually feel like it's the other way around. The online discourse over the past ~day or so has seemed unusually irrational to me for a technical audience. Commenters making emotionally charged claims of wrongdoing that appear inconsistent with the published claims without justification of the discrepancies. Granted you might well doubt openai's version of events but there's a general expectation of clear evidence when advancing claims of malfeasance.
Sort of, yeah. We are seeing more people commenting who have anti-AI sentiments or in the fence on the topic of AI usage.
On why some people are making emotionally charged claims, my guess: This affects the core belief of what is right or wrong, Impressions based on past doings of OpenAI, losing trust for OpenAI based on sequence of events.
I don't think we will get to see any clear evidence. I'm not even sure what would be the evidence. I would be surprised if OpenAI comes out clean if they have made a mistake. They move on to the next shiny thing.
I identify as neither mathematician nor "maker of things people want" (coder, hacker, engineer). But having friends who identify as those kinds of professionals, let me make some observations.
To use a metaanalogy from chess (once again), mathematicians play the opening game, and builders play the end game. AI is sort of a middleman connecting human understanding to applications.
I think there's a Technical argument to be made that openAI is a threat to the game itself. For example, could it have produced the navier-stokes counterexample without human inputs? since it seemed to have used the much gossiped research strategy "C" and "D", you can't absolutely be certain that Son of Astra (son of altman?) was magicking an unknown unknown from nothing (sorry to cue Rumsfeld). You have got to wait for the other five problems to be solved after general boycott
Subpar PR engine of the OpenAI leadership might kill the pipeline of inputs that they won't admit they still need in this dreamtime before "recursive self-improvement". You can call that emotional. Personally I would rather accuse mathematicians of "preferring local models that believe in the usefulness of unidentifiable individual contributors, and the uselessness of named generalist managers (ie the prompt writers at oAI)"
Big man tlb likes to say that science might be dead but engineering is just getting started. Navier-Stokes is the hammer of the nail in the science coffin. It kills science by killing the prestige of science. The engineers have to imagine that it's likely they will now get all their design ideas from the hypothetical future datacenters.
reply