I'm not even sure a tampering detector would help. If this can happen, I'm fairly sure someone would figure out how to do the ocr by appending components externally.

"We're talking here about a tiny eSIM implant and a little CPU doing OCR on the fonts appearing on the hardware wallet's screen to read the secrets during set up. So the secure element ain't tampered with."

...is accurate...it's one of the rare times I'd agree there's nothing they can do. And I was all prepared to storm in here saying "convenient excuse!"

Wouldn’t that screw up his whole thing? Because now you need infra to render to free users?

It's much harder to argue with the math and empirical results.

It's amazing how you had all those at the tip of your tongue, you are a clearly a learned medical scholar.

A peer comment discusses where the Spanish Flu originated, and illustrates the gap between what you asked the LLM for and well, how humans think and what the people you're talking to are actually talking about.

The LLM also went a bit overboard with the Wuhan Virus thing, it's a response, but it's hilariously out of context because, again, there's a gap between you're asking it for and what your interlocutor is communicating.

It's so confused that it's giving "Ah, but, people didn't say the thing you said was bad, because it was bad. The politically correct version was Wuhan Virus." - thus validating exactly what I said, the Chinavirus version was weird and bad.

(which has led me to believe that's a good approximation for hedonic adaptation, I've seen tons of attempts at demonstrating nerfing via benches, none persist)

After I entertain you by doing that, is there a steelman version of my reply you're interested in entertaining me with, by replying? Or, just the strawman?

Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)

Your post above! :) - "His LinkedIn post says “At OpenAI, I co-invented ChatGPT and RLHF”. And while ChatGPT claim is a marketing stretch, RLHF one is a pure lie."

> You can google or ask your favorite LLM "who invented RLHF?"

I don't think you're doing this on purpose or have any ill-intent, but the sudden onset of confusion might be due to missing the difference between "[I] invented RLHF" in for “At OpenAI, I co-invented ChatGPT and RLHF”

I don't want to just throw back your same phrase as you because you sound tired, but after explicating that, it feels fine to. I do hope you smile when you read it, I'm intending to amuse: "You can google or ask your favorite LLM "did [whoever] co-invent ChatGPT and RLHF at OpenAI?""

I appreciate a good hot take, I really do. But I can't parse it.

Pure lie?