Like, they may have trained on power lines, catenaries above rail tracks, network cables, etc. but all of them are horizontal. And the software couldn't recognize vertical cables or cables at an angle.
“He gave an answer” is comically dishonest framing, so it doesn’t matter what that answer is at all? Nice deflection at the end there, almost convinced me.
At this point I think we can safely retire “nothing burger”, can’t remember the last time it meant something other than “an inconvenient story for my narrative that I’d rather gloss over”
Yes that is the stated purpose, did you read the linked GitHub comment? The author lays out their points pretty well, you sound unreasonably upset about this. Are you submitting a lot of AI slop PRs or something?
P.S Talking. Like. This. Is. Really. Ineffective. It. Makes. Me. Just. Want. To. Disregard. Your. Point. Out. Of. Hand.
Sadly, I have a family member who is susceptible to these types of scams. They’ve been duped too many times to count. They’re overly eager to believe they’re exceptional and that good fortune is due them. No amount of explaining has had any impact on their beliefs for the past fifteen years. It’s heart-wrenching.
I can almost understand the replies to this thread where the victim was never exposed to a scam before and didn't know what to look for. It still sounds wild but I guess people are sheltered. My kid was scammed out of some virtual pet in an online game at six years old and learned that whenever someone offers something to you, but requires you to give up something first, it's a scam.
But how does one get scammed over and over, having seen it before and knowing what the playbook looks like?
I had a girlfriend years ago that was an extreme optimist. She was a very intelligent person, very outgoing and very successful. She believed everyone was good, and no one ever did anything bad. We got into an argument once over this exact same thing - she thought she'd won a new laptop from some sort of popup ad; all she had to do was fill out some sort of form with a bunch of private info. I told her it was an obvious scam, and she got really defensive, telling me that I'm always so cynical and if I expect the worst from people, that's all I'm gonna get. I talked her out of submitting the private info to the form, but yeah, I can totally understand how reasonably intelligent people would fall victim to something like that. There's different motivations, but for my ex-girlfriend, it was her refusal to accept that people can be bad (take advantage of others).
One could argue that the only system under which a citizen can own the means of production is capitalism. If you "own" something you can sell it, trade it, and otherwise use it as you wish. In any realistic version of communism these powers are transferred to a central authority instead.
I know, I didn't realize he was alive in the 90s! Hearing him (sarcastically) say "now having 10 parameters isn't unusual, correct?" makes me wish he could've seen the 60B-parameter curve fitting we're doing nowadays.
The whole lecture series was about giving students a style of thinking that might hopefully prepare them for the future, without focusing on special knowledge (there were other courses for that).
Two of the lectures were spent on building intuition for very high dimensionality (this one), and another on neural networks, because he thought there was a big chance they were going to be important. In the early 90s, not bad.
I think he already knew something about it... it talks about AI. Maybe at the time 100k to 1M dimensions? A bright mind like his, could very good extrapolate to 2024.
To be clear: the commenter you replied to just seems to be reiterating the idea, so I'm not accusing them of not reading the article.
You should have seen how few replies read the last article I posted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40525629
The majority of the comments, including all the top ones, expressed insights as original, that were pretty thoroughly analyzed in the article. Just read my mildly frustrated replies.
"Space is growing around the ball" just by itself doesn’t give much of an intuition at least to me, so I just wanted to elaborate on a way to think about it.
> The majority of the comments, including all the top ones, expressed insights as original, that were pretty thoroughly analyzed in the article. Just read my mildly frustrated replies.
I have thoughts about this, but I can find no way to contact you to open a conversation. You might want to think about adding something to your HN profile.
Meanwhile ... from this and other sources, I feel your pain.
I read the article and the threads (to a point). It's hilarious that in the article you describe LLMs as being like hasty people jumping to conclusions, and the commenters on HN do exactly that thing in their comments.
