Readit NewsNot at all surprising. I don't understand why seemingly bright people think this is a good idea, despite knowing the mechanism behind language models.
Hopefully more states follow, because it shouldn't be formally legal in provider settings. Informally, people will continue to use these models for whatever they want -- some will die, but it'll be harder to measure an overall impact. Language models are not ready for this use-case.
Nobel Disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease)
> “What actually causes lift is introducing a shape into the airflow, which curves the streamlines and introduces pressure changes – lower pressure on the upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface,” clarified Babinsky, from the Department of Engineering. “This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift – here the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it is rigged and so it acts as an aerofoil. In other words, it’s the curvature that creates lift, not the distance.”
The meta-point that "it's the curvature that creates the lift, not the distance" is incredibly subtle for a lay audience. So it may be completely wrong for you, but not for 99.9% of the population. The pressure differential is important, and the curvature does create lift, although not via speed differential.
I am far from an AI hypebeast, but this subthread feels like people reaching for a criticism.
That doesn't matter for lay audieces and doesn't really matter at all until we try and use them for technical things.
> For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward:
> * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases.
> * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher
> * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift
Isn't that explanation of why wings work completely wrong? There's nothing that forces the air to cover the top distance in the same time that it covers the bottom distance, and in fact it doesn't. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-wings-really-work
Very strange to use a mistake as your first demo, especially while talking about how it's phd level.
These are places where common lay discussions use language in ways that is wrong, or makes simplifcations that are reasonable but technically incorrect. They are especially common when something is so 'obvious' that experts don't explain it, the most frequent version of the concepts being explained
These, in my testing, show up a lot in LLMs - technical things are wrong when the most language of the most common explanations simplifies or obfuscates the precise truth. Often, it pretty much matches the level of knowledge of a college freshman/sophmore or slightly below, which is sort of the level of discussion of more technical topics on the internet.
Then there is "Granny Mobile" (S3 E33) which cracks me up every time.
Even my 7 year old daughter knows this and uses Bluey to cheer me up if I am in sour mood.
Don't even get me started on Shaun the Sheep. My daughter and I have re-watched everything there is about Shaun the Sheep and laugh in anticipation before the funny things actually happen.
Edit: I absolutely love the minisodes where Bandit tells kids bedtime stories (Goldilocks and Three little pigs). I wouldn't be surprised if the voice actor just went off and made up bunch of stuff which they animated later.
And for those new to this - don’t miss the episode Cricket (3,47) which makes my wife tear up everytime.
The ability to tell a clear and focused narrative that has humor and a lesson in 8 minutes is stunning to me. I have legitimately used it with grad students learning to write a paper. Nothing is wasted, not a line not a shot.
Dead Comment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/style/2008/09/29/what...
They could try, but not even China could build an impregnable firewall.