I went out of my way to make sure I found a "new" iPhone 13 mini for my corporate BYOD (needed for on-call, and I hate the cert they push so there's no way I'd use my personal phone...)
The only corporate phones they offered were HUGE, being required to carry 2 phones is enough of an annoyance already, but two full-sized phones is a nightmare!
Did you really need to ask a massive LLM and burn tokens on this?? A few minutes of googling has revealed a huge amount of this information just laying out in the open, and, a whole tool to author your own files that someone sells as independent software! (https://www.kinura.net/mid2pianocd/)
Yes. How else could the LLM even begin to do what it did otherwise. Not a criticism of you, just a place for a rant but I still find it incredible when people think they're doing something novel when really they're just reassembling existing work.
What really reinforced this for me was that I recently vibe coded a home assistant addon that, as it turns out, there was a github project that did almost the same thing. The initial implementation that came out of the LLM was essentially the same just with just some small tell in things like the logging that came from what I prompted it.
It was a very small project (maybe 500 LOC) so there's a greater chance of coincidence but it really felt like the office junior had just ripped off someone else's work and tried to hide it (badly) and really, that's exactly what they do
I had performed a quick GitHub search and not found any code. It certainly didn't have these decoy notes documented on its own. It only found them because I provided it a known Erik Satie piece, which has a specific number of notes, and it dug in to figure out what the excess notes were.
How else could the LLM even begin to do what it did otherwise.
Are we really still having the "LLMs can only regurgitate what was in their training data" argument? Where did the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture come from?
I'd found this code as well, and in a previous chat, Fable pointed me to it but first, I have a $100/month Claude subscription, and typically just barely run out every week, so I throw tokens at just about anything. Second, I'd come across that code, but it's windows software, not open source. Third, the encoder isn't anything exciting, and not really a concern except that the Fable version offers the ability to include the decoy notes. Finally, I literally just wrote "Yes, please write that encoder" when fable asked if I want it to "Bigger picture: since the Prodigy plays this format over Bluetooth, an encoder that writes your own MIDI into the right channel this way is probably the missing link for the MP3-to-piano project. I can build a test file if you want to try it."
I wasn’t trying to invoke the argument of “they can only regurgitate information” - the argument I was making was why resign all thinking to a company who does not have your interest in mind
The hackers of hacker news are forgetting how to hack
OpenAI is a cult of the most toxic and irresponsible personalities I've EVER seen in the history of technology. Everyone is reading this article and arguing if we're going to all fall to some mythical self-aware "AI."
What we really should be worried about is the sheer lack of regulation that OAI betted on out-pacing (very intentionally). It should be noted, again, for the millionth time: these models do NOTHING without a human typing SOMETHING into a prompt, or crafting a prompt, or training them, or placing them on machine to run. You can ctrl^C them at ANY time.
They could stop these random "attacks" at any point but they seem hell bent on just, doing nothing, claiming they "lost control" and that they're "shocked" at what happened, and clicking random buttons until someone gets killed. OpenAI is the one that keeps typing "keep going" into these machines...
Yes it's really a problem. On this website you are surrounded by people who have technical knowledge and understand at least somewhat, how a computer functions. You have the ability to separate "fun" and "reality" because you know you're putting input into a really really big calculator. Most people do not fathom this.
AI Psychosis is a real thing, look it up (don't just ask an LLM) and do some reading. It's actively harming people, and the way they think. There's no regulation around any of this stuff and it drives me crazy that we let these AI companies _sprint_ so far ahead of everyone, and now we're facing the consequences.
> Anthropomorphizing these models is doing immeasurable harm to society in ways we probably can’t event quantify right now
This is one of my biggest concerns about AI’s social impact. On top of that, models are positioned as superior to humans, at least in certain aspects (intelligence, knowledge) by AI companies’ PR campaigns, fear-mongering, and also by the changing tone of LLMs (e.g. Opus 5 sounds like a very patronizing, know-it-all, cynical person). I am afraid this is causing a shift in how humanity perceives itself and the way they relate to this technology, so AI might stop being a tool/technology and turn into a mythical, god-like superior being.
Are you invoking something like the Chinese Room where manipulating symbols can never be understanding? If so, that is a philosophical question and that thought experiment has its own conclusion baked into its premise. You will notice that 'manipulating symbols cannot be understanding' is stated as true without any argument for that case. This is a pretty clear cut example of 'begging the question' in that it assumes something is true without demonstrating it and then uses that as evidence in its own argument.
If you are using "understand" in a different way, then can you name the test you are applying to it which it fails at?
I went out of my way to make sure I found a "new" iPhone 13 mini for my corporate BYOD (needed for on-call, and I hate the cert they push so there's no way I'd use my personal phone...)
The only corporate phones they offered were HUGE, being required to carry 2 phones is enough of an annoyance already, but two full-sized phones is a nightmare!
reply