> “It’s not just patterns… but also cadence…”

Nice try, ChatGPT.

Thank you!

“Microsoft Tentacle” - Now there’s a name for a new product line.

this comment reminded me that GitKraken was a thing. And still is, apparently

> The streaming service Deezer said earlier this year it is receiving more than 60,000 fully AI-generated tracks daily…

Wow!

If you haven’t seen that “Everything is a Remix” documentary you should. It’s so good.

This hits hard. I’m getting hit with so much slop at work that I’ve quietly stopped being all that careful with reviews.

The “Cool Tools” catalog.

This is a joke.

Someone has to win. It might as well be me.

"The Secret" : The electron has to collapse the wavefunction somewhere. It might as well collapse so as to make my wishes come true.

I would really like to hear more about these acquaintances who think they are evolving.

> We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months.

If true, how much of this is a result of:

1. Genuine technical advancement

or:

2. Shoveling trillions of dollars into compute resources in order to service incoming LLM requests in a way that is completely unrealistic over the long term?

In other words… are we talking about genuine, sustainable innovation that we get to take with us moving forward and benefit from? Or are we talking about an “improvement” that is more akin to a mirage that will eventually disappear when the Ponzi scheme eventually collapses?

Much of this is due to vastly better posttraining RL, not models that are much bigger. The idea that most of these gains comes from training really big models, or throwing immensely larger amounts of compute at it, is not really true.

I wonder how much of this stuff is attributable to true model advancement, or if it’s an improvement in the genetic harness? It’s impossible to separate strict model improvement from improvement in the associated tools.

Good point.