I didn't scour the text but one thing I didn't see as an explanatory consideration in the paper is that the larger companies they talk about having larger adoption are also much more likely to have reasonably robust controls (and consequences) that prevent mixing personal/corporate use of AI tooling. That's my world.
On the other hand my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement. She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data against her lesson plans and state standards to find places to shore things up as the year progresses. She runs the english language learning department in her school and also uses it to help ensure that there is representation in her materials for the huge mix of cultural backgrounds of her students.
It's truly helped her immensely and it's all been on her personal account. The district has no program or budget to guide or support teachers and admin on using these tools in education.
Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.
Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?
When I say “how” I mean like how u/glouwbug mentioned: Formatting. But more so Structure.
When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.
Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.
Purely anecdotally, over the last few weeks I've noticed a significant uptick in articles trying to convince me how awesome AI is doing. And that's from a pretty high baseline of articles that were already telling me how I should really appreciate how awesome AI is.
It's almost as though there's some worry that the wheels are going to come off before the right people are able to cash out.
I didn't scour the text but one thing I didn't see as an explanatory consideration in the paper is that the larger companies they talk about having larger adoption are also much more likely to have reasonably robust controls (and consequences) that prevent mixing personal/corporate use of AI tooling. That's my world.
On the other hand my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement. She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data against her lesson plans and state standards to find places to shore things up as the year progresses. She runs the english language learning department in her school and also uses it to help ensure that there is representation in her materials for the huge mix of cultural backgrounds of her students.
It's truly helped her immensely and it's all been on her personal account. The district has no program or budget to guide or support teachers and admin on using these tools in education.
Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.
Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?
you are complaining about a problem with this paper without explaining what it is.
When I say “how” I mean like how u/glouwbug mentioned: Formatting. But more so Structure.
When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.
Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.
Granted I didn't comb over it but to me the big issue was that it was just a big data dump without any material attempt at meaningful analysis.
That and all the figures were at the bottom which was kind of annoying.
Making valid complaints would require actually reading it.
Likely just formatting
"badly". There, fixed it for you.
Seriously, the best blog post on this subject has to be Ludicity: https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-glo...
Purely anecdotally, over the last few weeks I've noticed a significant uptick in articles trying to convince me how awesome AI is doing. And that's from a pretty high baseline of articles that were already telling me how I should really appreciate how awesome AI is.
It's almost as though there's some worry that the wheels are going to come off before the right people are able to cash out.
Question: "How"
Answer: Yes.
Blog post: https://openai.com/index/how-enterprises-put-ai-to-work/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49281467)
69 pages long.
The main text is only 23 pages double-spaced. The remaining manuscript comprises images, tables, and references. It's not that long really.
[flagged]