Readit NewsMy most charitable guess at what is going on is severe mental illness.
Imagine ”facebook kills children” title, where article clarifies that it’s actually contractor that is doing the killing and also at other company request.
Far be it from me to defend Meta on privacy —- I won’t —- but we should at least characterize their numerous evils honestly.
Looking back, IMO the seeds of its downfall had already been planted by the time I was there, including the culture of blameless postmortems.
There was this idea that any problem—any outage or whatever —reflected not stupidity on the part of the perpetrator (Google hires the smartest people after all) but a process failure. Blameless postmortems avoided blame by ending with a process recommendation.
I’ve worked at startups since, and I do think that creating an environment where people are comfortable taking risks is just a fundamentally hard culture problem, and you don’t even have to be big to have it (though it doesn’t help). I’ve seen 15-person startups where engineers wouldn’t fix something because “I’m just an engineer and this is really a product decision” while the PM says “we need to get the engineers together in a meeting and come to a consensus on this.”
IMO Google’s hack of giving people space to take risks by letting them pass off failure as a process problem did sort of work, to their credit, until they got to where it sounds like they are now, where you can’t do anything without being accused of bypassing “good process,” which means going to endless lengths to get everyone’s opinions and placating everyone who disagrees with you.
It seems like at Meta they solved the problem by regarding failure as good and just. At my current company, to do something risky, you have to write a design doc and have a comment period, and then you’re free to do whatever the doc proposes. Idk what other approaches there are—I’d pay to read a book about it, though.
And the key point is this- these models are the worst they will ever be, and are gaining size at pace. So even if you we grant the argument that our brains are still a bit more complex, hopefully we can agree that will not be the case in 5 years. Heck, how about 20 years, or 100? Let's be real.
In any event, raw parameter/weight count to me seems like a very primitive way to judge "complexity" in comparison to the human brain. Looked at most ways, our brains are for more efficient at doing the incredible things they do than LLMs. Consider how little language young children are exposed to in comparison to LLMs given their abilities to figure out how to produce language.
If the brain doesn't work like an LLM, you can expand the size and "complexity" of these models to the moon and they won't outperform the brain. Current models can write impressively well, but they can barely do math. It's clear they don't reason as we do.
In this case of course there are multiple LLMs that are creating text which finds its way to the web, but to the extent that the output of the different LLMs have commonalities, this still seems problematic.
And afaik, there are no metrics or algorithms that reliably distinguish between human-generated and LLM-generated text, at least not for the current generations of LLMs.
What am I missing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/technology/tech-giants-ha...
Of course there's a cost, its just hidden and you are forced to pay it. Microsoft used its monopoly position to move into a new market.
The person approving the $1 million dollar budget item doesn’t really care that Teams isn’t “free” in the sense that there is no free lunch, and while they perhaps have moral qualms of antitrust, that’s outside their purview. We’re locked into Office suite and right now there is no extra charge for Teams.
I see your sarcasm backfire as most you are listing is just Microsoft dog-food with no real usefulness. The only good thing in your list is Excel, all the rest is bloatware. Teams is a resource hog that serve no useful purpose. Skype was perfectly fine to send messages or have some video call.
I admit I don't have experience as an IT administator but things like managing emails, accounts, database, manage remote computers can be done with well estalished tools from the linux/BSD world.
No one “loves” Teams, but honestly it serves its purpose for us at no cost.
No one loves OneDrive but it works.
I think people underestimate how much work it would take to integrate services, train people, and meet compliance requirements when using a handful of the best in class products instead of MS Suite.
I just do a lot of my R editing in PyCharm now and flip between terminals and RStudio. I was hoping DataSpell could unify that, but it's not ready.
The new RStudio IDE is promising, however.
When you calculate the box plot using normal distribution parameters, the outliers are outside the outer bracket.
If you split the dataset into 4 equal parts, the bracket will be larger because the outliers are still inside it.
The methodologies are not equal.
This thread is the first time i heard people do the "split dataset into 4 quarters" and using that for box plots.
In any event, none of these methods assume normality, or rely on CDFs of a normal curve.
If they did, every box plot would be symmetric.
The fact some people think that boxplots are constructed in such a way is a pretty good reason to take the author's article seriously as for how boxplots are confusing.
Threatening people if they don’t take a job with you is in the most literal way a challenge to your autonomy as a human being.