> We optimize what we can measure, not what we actually want to achieve. We hope and pray that these are the same thing, but they often aren’t.

He points out the core problem with LLMs. I believe it is impossible (or extremely expensive) to ensure that the models are aligned safely for everyone and any intention. And 'safe' can mean different things for a different audience.

Sounds like 'never' to me.

UBI in an unconstrained market is nothing else than enslavement.

Fair and progressive taxation and proper social systems are far more efficient. UBI is just an excuse to get rid of social systems and leave everyone individually stranded with problems no one can solve alone.

Because what is aligned, how and for whom? And who decides how that alignment should look like? There are probably many domains in which required alignment is in conflict with each other (e.g. using LLMs for warfare vs. ethically based domains). I can't imagine how this can be viable on the required scale (like one model per domain) for the already huge investments.

Anyone spotting the issue here? What did that really cost?

I am not against compute being used for scientific or other important problems. We did that before LLMs. However, the major LLM gatekeepers want to make all industries and companies dependent on their models. And, at some point, they need to charge them the actual, unsubsidized costs for the compute. In the meantime, companies restructure in the hopes that the compute costs remain cheap.

In my example, I expected it to create UI elements for a business application / expert system. And it did fine. In fact, I believe its perfect for creating average and functional designs. Its a better way to test variations of UIs for expert systems. But I want to know what the actual costs are.

This technology needs to become a commodity to destroy this aggregation of power between a few organizations with untrustworthy incentives and leadership.