It can be reasonable to be skeptical that advances on benchmarks may be only weakly or even negatively correlated with advances on real-world tasks. I.e. a huge jump on benchmarks might not be perceptible to 99% of users doing 99% of tasks, or some users might even note degradation on specific tasks. This is especially the case when there is some reason to believe most benchmarks are being gamed.
Real-world use is what matters, in the end. I'd be surprised if a change this large doesn't translate to something noticeable in general, but the skepticism is not unreasonable here.
I would suggest it is a phenomenon that is well studied, and has many forms. I guess mostly identify preservation. If you dislike AI from the start, it is generally a very strongly emotional view. I don't mean there is no good reason behind it, I mean, it is deeply rooted in your psyche, very emotional.
People are incredibly unlikely to change those sort of views, regardless of evidence. So you find this interesting outcome where they both viscerally hate AI, but also deny that it is in any way as good as people claim.
That won't change with evidence until it is literally impossible not to change.
I think we are on the cusp of it and that growing sense of chaos and acceleration and fear and at the same time gravitational attraction towards it is the beginning.
This is the future of all devtools in the AI era. There's no reason for tool innovation because we'll just use whatever AIs know best which will always be the most common thing in their training data. It's a self-reinforcing loop. The most common languages, tools, libraries of today are what we will be stuck with for the foreseeable future.
n=1 but I've picked up a daily chess hobby over the past couple of years and I noticed a big negative correlation between my chess rating and my weed use to the point that I've stopped using weed after a 20 year habit. I'm talking 100-200 elo drop that would last several days.
I'm pretty sure memory function is bad WHILE being baked but might improve long term when not under the influence. Maybe a rebound effect that makes the brain compensate for the CB1 receptor flooding.
This isn't right, the inflection point happens when computers/software can self-improve at a level where humans can't keep up. It isn't just that progress is continuously exponential, it's that tech becomes a magic box that spits out advances while even the smartest humans can only pray to it, like a (hopefully benevolent) god.
I was a subscriber until last year. They produce outstanding journalism with the exception of their Zionist pro-war bias, which I was ok ignoring until my disgust with their genocide whitewashing became too much.
Have you considered, and hear me out here, that the bias is yours?
I mean if their reporting about everything but this one topic is good, perhaps their “Zionist pro-war bias” and “genocide whitewashing” only seem that way to you because you’ve assumed an extremist position on the issue?
It's not a reason I myself would rely on to end a subscription but I'm glad for the data point and don't see the point in cross-examining. I'm thankful they took the time to answer my question.
I'm glad you didn't. Your reasoning was perfectly sound. The fact that your answer got downvoted is simply further evidence that there are those who want to hold a position without genuinely considering the arguments in favor of the alternate position.
This is so condescending. You assume that your side has considered the opposing arguments and the other side has not and that is why they hold the wrong position.
I've been genuinely depressed about how fast the country is descending into strong man rule while half the country cheers it on. Which I think is their point, they want their political opponents to suffer at all costs.
Massie is the odd man out out of 1000s of Republican politicians in being willing to publicly criticize his own party. He is very not typical. Everybody else marches in lockstep with whatever insanity trump puts out.
reply