"Every single one of these catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same vendor."
This is incorrect, the HF incident for example (the most well known) had nothing to do with irregular. I know there has been a news site pushing inaccurate articles (effort.news) on this topic but these are the facts.
Thank you, you're correct. Effort.news was one of my research sources, but you're right that although OpenAI use Irregular, they were not involved in the specific HF incident (although the failure mode was otherwise identical). I've updated the post to make that clear.
hackernews682 38 minutes ago [-]
Politicians aren’t “gullible”.
They know the game.
bigstrat2003 16 minutes ago [-]
That is the entire business model of AI companies: selling garbage to people foolish enough to buy the hype.
anigbrowl 1 hours ago [-]
Agreed, but they're getting paid with our money.
jgalt212 52 minutes ago [-]
There is really is no excuse for Washington here. Even for the layperson+, it doesn't take much use of an LLM to figure out where they produce good and usable results and where it's of specious of value.
+ every layperson is an expert in 1 or more areas.
iLoveOncall 16 minutes ago [-]
> + every layperson is an expert in 1 or more areas.
What do you think 70 years old career politicians are an expert in that would allow them to weigh whether a chatbot's answers are bullshit or not.
sublinear 11 minutes ago [-]
I thought the whole point of this discussion is that they don't have to care if it works. All that matters is that the majority believes it does, or at least doesn't make a fuss about the continued spending.
That's their expertise.
randallsquared 28 minutes ago [-]
> every layperson is an expert in 1 or more areas.
This isn't even remotely true, unless you're willing to go as far as "being this person is an area of expertise".
basch 15 minutes ago [-]
I dont have to be an expert to recognize when something is said with authority and confidence. Any time a model says something with conviction, my instinct is to double check.
Now if they taught them to express uncertainty and speak in terms of probability, I might be more likely to be blindly fooled by some kind of uncertain conviction.
sublinear 22 minutes ago [-]
Neither of you is wrong? Every lived experience does produce a unique expertise, not in "being" that person, but navigating their experiences. It would be very unusual that all of someone's experiences are completely worthless.
I suppose you've never had a unique perspective on something? Maybe that reflects on your self esteem? How unfortunate.
Rendered at 21:06:24 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
This is incorrect, the HF incident for example (the most well known) had nothing to do with irregular. I know there has been a news site pushing inaccurate articles (effort.news) on this topic but these are the facts.
https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-...
+ every layperson is an expert in 1 or more areas.
What do you think 70 years old career politicians are an expert in that would allow them to weigh whether a chatbot's answers are bullshit or not.
That's their expertise.
This isn't even remotely true, unless you're willing to go as far as "being this person is an area of expertise".
Now if they taught them to express uncertainty and speak in terms of probability, I might be more likely to be blindly fooled by some kind of uncertain conviction.
I suppose you've never had a unique perspective on something? Maybe that reflects on your self esteem? How unfortunate.