It's quite foolish of you to make that assumption. To begin with, with my timezone and when I could get to it, I was starting 12 hrs after the release so the leaderboard was useless. I was writing about it openly on the internet, pointing out the huddles I faced and how much effort it took to get the LLM to generate the correct solutions.
> it's quite foolish of you to make that assumption
To have assumed that you didn't submit to the leaderboard? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on not ruining the competition for everyone else. You can do whatever you want on your own time.
If you were submitting, despite as I recall AOC specifically saying not to submit ai solutions, then you know exactly why people were upset. If you weren't, them you're being aggressive at me for no reason.
> if AI fails to deliver, it fails to deliver for everyone and the people that bought into the hype can blame the consultants / whatever.
Understatement of the year. At this point, if AI fails to deliver, the US economy is going to crash. That would not be the case if executives hadn't bought in so hard earlier on.
Yep, either way things are going to suck for ordinary people.
My country has had bad economy and high unemployment for years, even though rest of the world is doing mostly OK. I'm scared to think what will happen once AI bubble either bursts or eats most white collar jobs left here.
Have you just been trolling this thread for a few hours posting this copypasta to anyone who thinks not having bathroom doors is gross? This is the third or fourth one of these I've seen, and that's a pretty weird battle to fight, is all I'm saying.
Absolutely. They have dramatically worsened the world, with little to no net positive impact. Nearly every (if not all) positive impacts have an associated negative that that dwarfs it.
LLMs aren't going anywhere, but the world would be a better place if they hadn't been developed. Even if they had more positive impacts, those would not outweigh the massive environmental degradation they are causing or the massive disincentive they created against researching other, more useful forms of AI.
It is, Amazon in particular is famous for this. It's a big part of the ride of "business source licenses" (see recent hububs around redis and hashicorp)
The brain does not fully develop until 25, 18 is simply one of many thresholds where we've decided (in the US) to start officially transitioning children into adulthood. Others include 14-16 (driving), 21 (drinking), and 25 (car rental).
So if 17 can't be called a child, what can? You have to draw the completely arbitrary like somewhere. Do you chose the legal 18 (in the US)? The Hebrew 13? Some other metric?
I normally agree, but in this case the three companies in question aren't refusing to sell, they're threatening to sue if someone does anything with something that they have no idea if they even have rights to.
If nobody has the de facto rights, them there's nobody to steal it from.
"Not knowing if you own the IP" doesn't mean "you don't own the IP." Doesn't change the theft. But does make a argument that companies, with no interest in selling a media, should think about giving it away.
Most of the hubbub I saw was because AI code making it into those leaderboards very clearly violates the spirit of competition.
reply