Well, I thought this was funny. For what it's worth.

Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.

It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.

What?

> Sure it does.

What? Contradicting yourself immediately?

> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”

…what?

> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.

I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).

> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.

Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.

I personally don't think it's useful evaluation here either as you're trying to pretend discord is just a "service" like google or chatgpt, but it's not. It's a social platform and as such, there's a ton of variance on which subjects will be answered with what degree of expertise and certainty.

I'm assuming you asked these questions because you yourself know the answers in advance. Is it then safe to assume that you were _already_ in the server you asked your questions, already knew users there would be likely to know the answer, etc? Did you copy paste the questions as quoted above? I hope not! They're pretty patronizing without a more casual tone, perhaps a greeting. If not, doesn't exactly seem like a fair evaluation.

I don't know why I'm typing this all out. Of course domain expert _human beings_ are better than a language model. That's the _whooole_ point here. Trying to match human's general intelligence. While LLM's may excel in many areas and even beat the "average" person - you're not evaluating against the "average" person.

Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.

I think it’s pretty unlikely that they are instantly finetuning back on the feedback in this case without filtering and deduplicating. If only because it’s fairly well known to degrade results.

That’s not to say I don’t personally believe the existence of self awareness in other animals - I do. I just think the bar is incredibly high for actually proving it.

> While inaccurate information may be tolerable when a student uses ChatGPT to help him with their homework, it is unacceptable when it comes to information about individuals.

I don’t even understand this part. Why would inaccurate information be at all acceptable for homework? You need accurate information there just as much as with people. In fact there’s probably a good deal of overlap.

This article is bad.

Could you at least consider that the group’s entire premise seems like nothing more than the post hoc rationalization of a bunch of wealthy educated elites with low social and emotional intelligence? The levels of tone deaf I perceive as someone who doesn’t have, can’t have that much wealth to even begin my journey in their little club are enormous.

There’s very little that is subtle about it and it’s frankly offensive and _clearly_ used as a justification for insecure Bay Area “liberals” who find themselves with lots of money and a political identity that makes them insecure about that fact.

The answer? You’re actually saving mankind with your money! It’s just simple Bayesian logic! The same thing that got you here! (Spoiler alert: it was more to do with luck than skill).

If you’re on board, I guess it’s not as offensive? But for me and others, it’s like elites trying to brag about how great they are while the rest of us fight for scraps.

So when you see someone with an axe to grind, maybe consider that EA’s messaging is not as universally appealing as you think, and may even be outright tone deaf enough to cause one to reasonably find it disgusting.

> and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk.

It seems naive to me to assume that members of EA in positions of power don’t secretly have their own motivations. Furthermore it’s not very “Bayesian” to assume that a implies b here with so many hidden variables at play.