Quotations in 2024
Filters: Type: quotation × Year: 2024 × Sorted by date
It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.
— Nathaniel Borenstein # 8th May 2024, 8:24 pm
Watching in real time as “slop” becomes a term of art. the way that “spam” became the term for unwanted emails, “slop” is going in the dictionary as the term for unwanted AI generated content
— @deepfates # 7th May 2024, 3:59 pm
Migrations are not something you can do rarely, or put off, or avoid; not if you are a growing company. Migrations are an ordinary fact of life.
Doing them swiftly, efficiently, and -- most of all -- *completely* is one of the most critical skills you can develop as a team.
— Charity Majors # 6th May 2024, 1:52 pm
I believe these things:
1. If you use generative tools to produce or modify your images, you have abandoned photointegrity.
2. That’s not always wrong. Sometimes you need an image of a space battle or a Triceratops family or whatever.
3. What is always wrong is using this stuff without disclosing it.
— Tim Bray # 4th May 2024, 4:26 pm
I used to have this singular focus on students writing code that they submit, and then I run test cases on the code to determine what their grade is. This is such a narrow view of what it means to be a software engineer, and I just felt that with generative AI, I’ve managed to overcome that restrictive view.
It’s an opportunity for me to assess their learning process of the whole software development [life cycle]—not just code. And I feel like my courses have opened up more and they’re much broader than they used to be. I can make students work on larger and more advanced projects.
— Daniel Zingaro # 3rd May 2024, 6:17 pm
AI is the most anthropomorphized technology in history, starting with the name—intelligence—and plenty of other words thrown around the field: learning, neural, vision, attention, bias, hallucination. These references only make sense to us because they are hallmarks of being human. [...]
There is something kind of pathological going on here. One of the most exciting advances in computer science ever achieved, with so many promising uses, and we can’t think beyond the most obvious, least useful application? What, because we want to see ourselves in this technology? [...]
Anthropomorphizing AI not only misleads, but suggests we are on equal footing with, even subservient to, this technology, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
— Zach Seward # 2nd May 2024, 7:44 pm
I’m old enough to remember when the Internet wasn’t a group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four.
— Tom Eastman # 2nd May 2024, 2:40 am
We collaborate with open-source and commercial model providers to bring their unreleased models to community for preview testing.
Model providers can test their unreleased models anonymously, meaning the models’ names will be anonymized. A model is considered unreleased if its weights are neither open, nor available via a public API or service.
— LMSYS # 30th April 2024, 8:35 pm
Performance analysis indicates that SQLite spends very little time doing bytecode decoding and dispatch. Most CPU cycles are consumed in walking B-Trees, doing value comparisons, and decoding records—all of which happens in compiled C code. Bytecode dispatch is using less than 3% of the total CPU time, according to my measurements.
So at least in the case of SQLite, compiling all the way down to machine code might provide a performance boost 3% or less. That’s not very much, considering the size, complexity, and portability costs involved.
— D. Richard Hipp # 30th April 2024, 1:59 pm
# All the code is wrapped in a main function that gets called at the bottom of the file, so that a truncated partial download doesn’t end up executing half a script.
— tailscale.com/install.sh # 29th April 2024, 9 pm
The creator of a model can not ensure that a model is never used to do something harmful – any more so that the developer of a web browser, calculator, or word processor could. Placing liability on the creators of general purpose tools like these mean that, in practice, such tools can not be created at all, except by big businesses with well funded legal teams.
[...]
Instead of regulating the development of AI models, the focus should be on regulating their applications, particularly those that pose high risks to public safety and security. Regulate the use of AI in high-risk areas such as healthcare, criminal justice, and critical infrastructure, where the potential for harm is greatest, would ensure accountability for harmful use, whilst allowing for the continued advancement of AI technology.
— Jeremy Howard # 29th April 2024, 4:04 pm
I’ve worked out why I don’t get much value out of LLMs. The hardest and most time-consuming parts of my job involve distinguishing between ideas that are correct, and ideas that are plausible-sounding but wrong. Current AI is great at the latter type of ideas, and I don’t need more of those.
— Martin Kleppmann # 27th April 2024, 7:31 pm
It’s very fast to build something that’s 90% of a solution. The problem is that the last 10% of building something is usually the hard part which really matters, and with a black box at the center of the product, it feels much more difficult to me to nail that remaining 10%. With vibecheck, most of the time the results to my queries are great; some percentage of the time they aren’t. Closing that gap with gen AI feels much more fickle to me than a normal engineering problem. It could be that I’m unfamiliar with it, but I also wonder if some classes of generative AI based products are just doomed to mediocrity as a result.
— Moxie Marlinspike # 26th April 2024, 9:40 pm
If you’re auditioning for your job every day, and you’re auditioning against every other brilliant employee there, and you know that at the end of the year, 6% of you are going to get cut no matter what, and at the same time, you have access to unrivaled data on partners, sellers, and competitors, you might be tempted to look at that data to get an edge and keep your job and get to your restricted stock units.
— Dana Mattioli # 26th April 2024, 5:43 pm
The only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down
— Alex Jason, via Adam Savage # 25th April 2024, 2:17 pm
I’ve been at OpenAI for almost a year now. In that time, I’ve trained a lot of generative models. [...] It’s becoming awfully clear to me that these models are truly approximating their datasets to an incredible degree. [...] What this manifests as is – trained on the same dataset for long enough, pretty much every model with enough weights and training time converges to the same point. [...] This is a surprising observation! It implies that model behavior is not determined by architecture, hyperparameters, or optimizer choices. It’s determined by your dataset, nothing else. Everything else is a means to an end in efficiently delivery compute to approximating that dataset.
— James Betker # 25th April 2024, 5:13 am
When I said “Send a text message to Julian Chokkattu,” who’s a friend and fellow AI Pin reviewer over at Wired, I thought I’d be asked what I wanted to tell him. Instead, the device simply said OK and told me it sent the words “Hey Julian, just checking in. How’s your day going?” to Chokkattu. I’ve never said anything like that to him in our years of friendship, but I guess technically the AI Pin did do what I asked.
— Cherlynn Low # 24th April 2024, 3:07 pm
A bad survey won’t tell you it’s bad. It’s actually really hard to find out that a bad survey is bad — or to tell whether you have written a good or bad set of questions. Bad code will have bugs. A bad interface design will fail a usability test. It’s possible to tell whether you are having a bad user interview right away. Feedback from a bad survey can only come in the form of a second source of information contradicting your analysis of the survey results.
Most seductively, surveys yield responses that are easy to count and counting things feels so certain and objective and truthful.
Even if you are counting lies.
— Erika Hall # 24th April 2024, 12:31 am
We [Bluesky] took a somewhat novel approach of giving every user their own SQLite database. By removing the Postgres dependency, we made it possible to run a ‘PDS in a box’ [Personal Data Server] without having to worry about managing a database. We didn’t have to worry about things like replicas or failover. For those thinking this is irresponsible: don’t worry, we are backing up all the data on our PDSs!
SQLite worked really well because the PDS – in its ideal form – is a single-tenant system. We owned up to that by having these single tenant SQLite databases.
— Daniel Holmgren # 23rd April 2024, 7 pm
We introduce phi-3-mini, a 3.8 billion parameter language model trained on 3.3 trillion tokens, whose overall performance, as measured by both academic benchmarks and internal testing, rivals that of models such as Mixtral 8x7B and GPT-3.5 (e.g., phi-3-mini achieves 69% on MMLU and 8.38 on MT-bench), despite being small enough to be deployed on a phone.
— Phi-3 Technical Report # 23rd April 2024, 3 am
The blog post announcing the shutdown was done one day early. The idea was to take the opportunity of the new Pope being announced and Andy Rubin being replaced as head of Android, so that the [Google] Reader news may be drowned out. PR didn’t apparently realize that the kinds of people that care about the other two events (especially the Pope) are not the same kind of people that care about Reader, so it didn’t work.
— Mihai Parparita # 20th April 2024, 9:55 pm
I have a child who is also 2e and has been part of the NYC G&T program. We’ve had a positive experience with the citywide program, specifically with the program at The Anderson School.
— Meta AI bot, answering a question on a forum # 18th April 2024, 3:34 am
In mid-March, we added this line to our system prompt to prevent Claude from thinking it can open URLs:
“It cannot open URLs, links, or videos, so if it seems as though the interlocutor is expecting Claude to do so, it clarifies the situation and asks the human to paste the relevant text or image content directly into the conversation.”
— Alex Albert (Anthropic) # 18th April 2024, 12:22 am
But the reality is that you can’t build a hundred-billion-dollar industry around a technology that’s kind of useful, mostly in mundane ways, and that boasts perhaps small increases in productivity if and only if the people who use it fully understand its limitations.
— Molly White # 17th April 2024, 7:53 pm
The saddest part about it, though, is that the garbage books don’t actually make that much money either. It’s even possible to lose money generating your low-quality ebook to sell on Kindle for $0.99. The way people make money these days is by teaching students the process of making a garbage ebook. It’s grift and garbage all the way down — and the people who ultimately lose out are the readers and writers who love books.
— Constance Grady # 16th April 2024, 11:31 pm
Permissions have three moving parts, who wants to do it, what do they want to do, and on what object. Any good permission system has to be able to efficiently answer any permutation of those variables. Given this person and this object, what can they do? Given this object and this action, who can do it? Given this person and this action, which objects can they act upon?
— wkirby on Hacker News # 16th April 2024, 7:49 pm
[On complaints about Claude 3 reduction in quality since launch] The model is stored in a static file and loaded, continuously, across 10s of thousands of identical servers each of which serve each instance of the Claude model. The model file never changes and is immutable once loaded; every shard is loading the same model file running exactly the same software. We haven’t changed the temperature either. We don’t see anywhere where drift could happen. The files are exactly the same as at launch and loaded each time from a frozen pristine copy.
— Jason D. Clinton, Anthropic # 15th April 2024, 1:27 am
The language issues are indicative of the bigger problem facing the AI Pin, ChatGPT, and frankly, every other AI product out there: you can’t see how it works, so it’s impossible to figure out how to use it. [...] our phones are constant feedback machines — colored buttons telling us what to tap, instant activity every time we touch or pinch or scroll. You can see your options and what happens when you pick one. With AI, you don’t get any of that. Using the AI Pin feels like wishing on a star: you just close your eyes and hope for the best. Most of the time, nothing happens.
— David Pierce # 12th April 2024, 12:39 pm
[on GitHub Copilot] It’s like insisting to walk when you can take a bike. It gets the hard things wrong but all the easy things right, very helpful and much faster. You have to learn what it can and can’t do.
— Andrej Karpathy # 11th April 2024, 1:27 am
The challenge [with RAG] is that most corner-cutting solutions look like they’re working on small datasets while letting you pretend that things like search relevance don’t matter, while in reality relevance significantly impacts quality of responses when you move beyond prototyping (whether they’re literally search relevance or are better tuned SQL queries to retrieve more appropriate rows). This creates a false expectation of how the prototype will translate into a production capability, with all the predictable consequences: underestimating timelines, poor production behavior/performance, etc.
— Will Larson # 10th April 2024, 11:09 pm