I stopped writing seriously about “AI” a few months ago because I felt that it was more important to promote the critical voices of those doing substantive research in the field.
But also because anybody who hadn’t become a sceptic about LLMs and diffusion models by the end of 2023 was just flat out wilfully ignoring the facts.
The public has for a while now switched to using “AI” as a negative – using the term “artificial” much as you do with “artificial flavouring” or “that smile’s artificial”.
But it seems that the sentiment might be shifting, even among those predisposed to believe in “AI”, at least in part.
Between this, and the rise of “AI-free” as a marketing strategy, the bursting of the AI bubble seems quite close.
Another solid piece from Bjarnason.
I love the “criti-hype”. AI peddlers absolutely love any concerns that imply that the AI is really good at something.
Safety concern that LLMs would go Skynet? Say no more, I hear you and I’ll bring it up in the congress!
Safety concern that terrorists might use it to make bombs? Say no more! I agree that the AI is so great for making bombs! We’ll restrict it to keep people safe!
Sexual roleplay? Yeah, good point, I love it. Our technology is better than sex itself! We’ll restrict it to keep mankind from falling into the sin of robosexuality and going extinct! I mean, of course, you can’t restrict something like that, but we’ll try, at least until we release a hornybot.
But any concern about language modeling being fundamentally not the right tool for some job (Do you want to cite a paper or do you want to sample from the underlying probability distribution?), hey hey hows about we talk about the skynet thing instead?
