I wanted to describe how the algorithm works, and show what it looks like to ship a project of that magnitude, and share some of the fun problems complexities that come up. I'd like to see more creatives using code as a way to bolster their projects and reducing tedious work for themselves with automation or deployment scripts, and I think Rust is a really great language for doing this, so I thought it would be inspiring to share how and why I'm doing it.
I agree that it would be overall more valuable to have the whole thing open source online, but sometimes I want to share how I solved problems without open sourcing all my code directly, for various personal reasons. But from the many comments I'm getting across the internet on the article it seems like people are getting a lot of value and motivation out of it, which was the intent, so that makes me happy.
They show an IIS "404" page for part of one of my sites. It was always served under linux / apache. They have the rest of the site still; i dunno why they wouldn't archive the "Annotated Constitution"
I'm actually pretty impressed that they are sticking to their (non-profit) charter against so much pressure. While this was not a "clean" maneuverer I'm not really in a position to judge, given my lack of context. Perhaps there could have been a better execution, but it was the willingness to act when it would not be easy that I think matters most.
On the contrary, it shows it is a non-profit. People keep denying it is and pretending it is a normal Silicon Valley startup. This demonstrates clearly it is a non-profit.
But the Board members of the non-profit company have been leveraging OpenAI's APIs in their other business endeavors -- like, Adam's Poe chatbot for Quora. More details on board's timeline:
AI today is in a weird position. What I can do today with AI was _inimaginable_ just 1 year ago. However, for a lot of people, the concept has worn out so fast, that they don't realize anymore what has happened... Some very intelligent people said some very silly things, such as that it was a bad search engine (it isn't a search engine) that it was a glorified word guesser (it doesn't exactly work as your telephone word suggestion). And so on and so forth. People always try to understand new technology through the lense of older technology. I do it, you certainly do it. This is how we grasp novelty. But AI is in a different dimension. I have been working in the domain for 30 years and I really didn't think we would reach this level in my life time. Talking to a computer to bring it to make some quite complicated task is INCREDIBLE... However, since communication is really ubiquitous for Humans, we tend to forget that it is an incredible achievement... In less than a year, we went for Scify ("Her") to reality, and in less than a year people have become blasé for something so fantastic... This is what consummerism did to people... They can't wonder more than a year...
It's a wonder. But if capex and opex are insane, and go up with every generation, the magic fades quickly.
Like, GitHub Copilot may be amazing, but if it looses money for every added user, if power users loose the company 4 or 8 times what they already pay, then maybe it's not an efficient use of compute resources.
Yes, this. What made tech companies valued at higher revenue multiples than other industries is that new users could start using a product at near zero marginal cost once the tech was built. New revenue at zero marginal cost. AI is great but expensive to operate and the expense grows in direct proportion to usage. New users come in and you have to stand up a new data center full of H100s to serve it.
Recently I had to share a documentation written in Word, which I had to format in Markdown to put it on Github.
I transformed my document into a text file for each chapter and then I asked chatGPT to transform each of these files into a Markdown page.
And I also asked it to improve the English.
Then I asked chatGPT to translate each of these files into different languages.
The result is here: https://github.com/naver/tamgu/tree/master/documentations
Basically, I did in a couple of hours, something that would have taken weeks of tedious work
I know that lots of people have personal stories of using ChatGPT but I was hoping something publicly reported on or like a showcase of truly impressive usages somewhere.
You are kidding right. Taking a raw text file and detecting every single header, sub-headers, keywords and pieces of code to add the right markdown tags is a simple task to you?
Have you ever tried to make a Python program to do exactly that?
I only used couple of sentences to build my prompt...
No, what is the computational complexity of the task? The computational complexity of the problem is not about how long your code is or how long you took to write it.
I don't know your CS background but perhaps I do not view the terms "complex" and "tedious" the way you assume. A tedious parser is certainly tedious to write, but it is not (necessarily) complex. And from an engineering standpoint it is questionable that you lost all the formatting information from Word, which would have already demarcated what things were headers, code, and so forth. So, you had to use a roundabout way—an LLM—to recover that information from the semantics.
If what you're really arguing is that ChatGPT works well for language translation tesks, in this case translating mixed prose, code, and foreign languages--sure I guess that's great at productivity and removing tedium, but it's not that surprising a usage given what LLMs are. They are language translators.
In other words you're saying it's complex but your argument reduces a task that is straightforward but tedious for humans, to the problem complexity of natural language processing.
The interesting to boring scale depends on novelty. Given the ai oversaturation it works exactly as expected.
AI Art is currently in very early stage. In the real art space (3d modeling, sculpting, animation, vfx, animation, rigging, retargeting), it could make huge breakthroughs and multiply true artists' productivity in significant ways
During my brief venture into 3d graphics I often found that 1 hour of truly creating is spaced between ten hours of fixing up UV's, redoing topology, finding cause for the seam, trying to make a watertight mesh for photon tracing, fighting the subdivision algorithm to retain details, diverting a edge loop, where it causes the less distress.
I call the first hour true productivity. The last part is, from the perspective of the end product, simply a wasted time. That's very similar to the boilerplate code everybody agrees is a necessary evil in the programming.
If AI allows to reduce the #2 it truly will have positive impact
"This radio thing is a dead end. I usually just get a bunch of static when I turn it on, or maybe an electrical shock. And even if it works, it's only a question of whether a tube burns out before the battery dies." - lazystar's grandpa, circa 1923
Oh, you mean because Bitcoin didn’t turn out as a stupidly-high risk speculation object without any value rooted in reality, wasting a sizeable portion of the power production of a world threatened by the climate crisis, swinging between orders of magnitude in valuation on Elon‘s whims? The Bitcoin that is irrelevant everywhere else but the crypto bubble itself?
after i lost everything in the mtgox scandal, i used my last bitcoin to buy a lenovo thinkpad, which i used to learn computer programming and network engineering.
Western countries have lower rates than Japan when you exclude for native birth rates. Western countries get a big boost in birth rate when you account for non-natives having population booms.
With the exception of Israel & Ireland, which are the only two western countries to have a positive native birth rate (avg >2.2 births/woman - supposedly 2.2 is the magic number that keeps a population size stable).
Anyone who has ever donated to a church is in the same boat. You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay, has not had any anti-gay activity at all in any form.
They are all scum. None are fit to have jobs anywhere. It would be better for those who have been leaders of companies, leading them to prosperity, to burn than let them stay - fire them all, everyone. Yes, you too.
Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt.
Edit: Many downvotes! Self righteous hypocrites rejoice! You enable anti-gay hate. You disgust me.
And i've not been keeping a list or anything, but plenty of churches in my part of the world have rainbow flag stickers on their signs/noticeboards.
I went to watch the local Pride parade a few years ago and was bored by the number of churches marching in the parade. (It's great that you're actively showing your support, but at least put some effort in to do something fun during the parade. Sheesh!)
Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13
Something about wanting their cake and eating it too.
Beside this, my point is that even if people join this church, they have undoubtedly donated money to an anti-gay church in the past, which makes them forever unworthy apparently.
For the record, that's nonsense: the Levitical laws are typically not taken as binding for Christians. The reasons for that are surprisingly straightforward (see: entire NT), but this is a rather silly tangent issue on an already-silly thread and is just not the forum.
And no, while I've given money to a church, it is not anti-gay, thankyouverymuch.
The purpose of the Law was to keep his Covenant separate and in line until Christ came to fulfill (you might see that word in your link) the Law's function. Galatians 5:14 (referencing Matthew 22:38 no doubt): "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Additionally, translation difficulties make a lot of sexual concepts tricky to relate to contemporary cultural English (since our modern conceptualization of sex is thankfully quite a bit different from the ancient world).
And anyway this is all moot, because unless you subscribe to Replacement theology (which I'm not familiar with, so do not have an opinion on), very few Christians are part of Israel.
EDIT: Scratch that last paragraph: now that I think about it, Peter's vision in Acts 10 rendered dietary uncleanness and circumcision---part of the Law---null and void even though he was a Jew and so part of Israel. So maybe even Jewish Christians aren't under the Law? I'm not sure, TBH.
Have you read the rest of Leviticus? Do you know of anyone who keeps all of those rules? And not without reason; those rules have been overridden in the NT.
As far as I know, homosexuality is mentioned a grand total of 3 times in the entire bible, some of those were arguably a lot more specific than homosexuality in general (like temple prostitution or rape), and none of them from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself.
Compare this to the number of times Jesus himself insists on loving everybody (neighbour, enemy), or argues against wealth.
Don't just cherry pick a few verses from some dark corners, read the entire thing, and understand its context, understand what the core message is. Really, if you listen to some people, you'd think that the bible is all about Genesis 1 and Leviticus, and anything later is pretty much irrelevant (except maybe the Revelations of John).
> You would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't given money to a church in some form, and equally hard pressed to not find a church which is not anti-gay
You're not looking very hard. Churches vary a lot, especially once you start looking outside arch-conservative US. There are churches that have gay vicars. Lots of churches have not had any anti-gay activity. The WBC is not exactly average.
It's a fair jump from "Anti-gay" Church to WBC. So you go to a hippy church, that's great. You said it yourself, churches vary a lot but most side on the homosexuality being a bad thing.
I don't go to a hippy church at all. In fact, the church I go to is member of what's generally considered to be a pretty orthodox reformed denomination. But it's not American, and maybe that's what makes the difference here.
I'm not claiming that nobody in my church is anti-gay. I know of another orthodox reformed church in Amsterdam where some people have objected to a lesbian couple's participation in some sacraments. I don't doubt that in more rural areas, that attitude is more common. But it's not remotely universal.
But I wouldn't even count the more liberal church of the late famous Dutch gay TV presenter and vicar Jos Brink as a "hippy church".
So you're dutch... that explains your arrogant anti-american sentiment. The only point i am trying to make is you should try to understand a person's culture before understanding their actions.
Because people are making so much effort to understand Christianity here. All I'm saying is that the claim that all churches are anti-gay unless they are hippy churches, is plain false. If it seems true where you live, then maybe that says something about the culture where you live. Don't blame that on some general Christianity straw man.
You really think supporting homosexuals is a common trait in churches anywhere? "Being gay isn't bad if you don't act on it." Oh, yeah, sure. Totally not anti-gay.
That's the fun thing about most religious folks. They pick and choose which parts of <HOLY BOOK> to follow. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but ever heard the term "Cafeteria Christianity"[0]? It seems that following the entirety of a religion would be rather hard unless you quickly dive into the sticky situation of saying which parts are valid and which are not.
Yeah, it's so hypocritical to only follow the words of Jesus Christ, and ignore all the older stuff that's contradicted or overridden by Jesus. Like they don't even know why their religion is called Leviticianity.
Is your bible the inerrant word of your god? If not then does it have any legitimacy? Is homosexuality a sin?
I have yet to find someone like you who who at some point does not admit they are anti-gay. They say they are not, and then you find out they are due to holding two contradictory views at once. Even then you've never given money to any church than ones you know for a fact are 100% not anti-gay, have no one in power who is not anti-gay? That is the parallel.
It doesn't take a very complicated reading of the Christian bible to figure out that homosexuality can be justifiably "ok."
First... the so called "Old Testament" or Old Covenant (animals being cut in half and god passing through them in a rather creepy passage) was made obsolete by the "New Testament" or New Covenant (i.e. Jesus dying, granting forgiveness to all believers so they could join him in the afterlife). That means all the old prohibitions, from men-laying-with-men to shellfish to mixed fabrics are no longer necessarily valid. "Man was not created for the Law; the Law was created for Man," as Jesus told a Pharisee or Sadducee or one of the other old Jews he upset badly.
Next, looking to the New Testament, you'll find that Jesus never speaks about homosexuality; it's just Paul in his letters to the churches. Paul calls himself a disciple of Jesus and says that he doesn't mean to extend or conflict with Jesus' teachings. A contextual reading of his target audience when he condemns homosexuality (which isn't the word he uses, since that word/concept didn't quite exist yet) shows that he was critiquing the Greek church's practice of pederasty, aka "Platonic love." The reason for Paul's disdain of the practice was that elders were taking advantage of young boys for their own sexual gratification. I don't think there is widespread support for pederasty (or other, more hetero-normative but still frowned upon forms of ephebophilia), but I may be wrong on that count.
In short, not all Christians believe fervently the beliefs you're prescribing to them. Please don't straw man an entire faith because of your own misunderstanding of the beliefs of some.
>Please don't straw man an entire faith because of your own misunderstanding of the beliefs of some.
It's hard to read their holy book which they claim is the word of god and not judge them as awful people.
Again my point is that no one knows what money they give or spend is used to fuel anti-gay agenda, and so everyone is unfit. This is where the witch hunt will go.
It's always fun to hear non-Christians tell Christians what they should believe. You cling to that straw man, but the fact of the matter is that nobody holds all those laws from Leviticus anymore. And for good reason.
I'm your hard pressed example that has never given money to a church.
I also support true equality: the complete removal of any government involvement in marriage. All consenting adults should be able to get married without any government permission or regulation. No future group of persons should have to ask the government for permission to exercise the rights that do not belong to the government to begin with. If the government believes it gives you such rights, some future politician will find it all too easy to believe they have a right to revoke them.
Read my post I gave two examples and you were not specific.
> has never given money to a church.
I am doubtful, because even if you managed to never go to any church and never give a cent at any age, you can still give money to churches through institutions which seem secular. The Salvation Army is anti-gay and collects money every year from most popular store fronts. Never given them a cent? Never purchased Purina brand dog food? Never paid for anything related to Exxon? You can't know what money you give to someone or pay for something which which ultimately doesn't fuel anti-gay agenda. That's my point.
You're going to have to stretch thin on this one to ensnare me.
No, I've never purchased anything Purina. No, I've never given money to the Salvation Army (not that I agree with your claims, I've never researched their supposed anti-gay position). You might have to dig down to where I buy my shoe laces.
Your position proclaims that if all things apply, then nothing applies (that is your point, right? that everyone is guilty, and thus anyone pointing fingers are just hypocrites). In reality, all actions and beliefs are not created equal. Even in a world of glass houses, some stones are dramatically more destructive than others when thrown.
A very large portion of morality is based on intent + knowledge / awareness. Someone that buys shoe laces from an anti-gay business, while not knowing that fact, is not morally guilty of supporting the anti-gay movement, even if they are financially guilty.
That's amazing to me that you have never, ever given any money to the Salvation Army. You may be a unicorn who has never donated to anything which supports an anti-gay agenda good for you.
>Your position proclaims that if all things apply, then nothing applies
I'm saying that if it's enough to fired someone over donating to a bill that is anti-gay then it's enough to fire someone for donating over and over and over again to a church which fuels constant anti-gay agenda. Not just Christianity but Judaism or Islam which are even more explicitly anti-gay - logically anyone who is a Jew or Muslim should be targeted next by the social justice witch hunt.
If you buy Purina, you're paying for dog food. If you donate money to a proposition that opposes gay marriage, you are paying for a proposition that opposes gay marriage.
I intentionally avoid Chik-fil-a, The Salvation Army, etc. by choice. However, if someone was pro-LGBT and still chose to eat Chik-fil-a, I don't really care. The only time it would be comparable would be the people who intentionally started eating Chik-fil-a as a show of opposition to the people who were boycotting it.
