This is like saying “I don’t understand how airplanes fly, so I’ll happily board an airplane designed by an LLM. The reality is determined by how much I know about it.”
No, the other way around. I am saying it is not a smart take to say ”a safe airplane cannot be built if LLMs were used in the process in any way, because reasons”. The safety of the airplane (or more generally the outcome of any venture) can be measured in other ways than leaning on some rule that you cannot use an LLM for help at any stage because they are not always correct
You can learn how compilers work and understand how they do what they do. Nobody understands what’s in those billions of parameters, and no one ever will.
why are there so many parameters in the first place? and was it humans who generated so many? seems like a very big job for a human to do, or even a team of humans to do.
disclaimer: I know next to nothing about llms. and I'm not that interested to learn about them. just asking casually.
> why are there so many parameters in the first place?
Because parsing and writing human language in a natural way is extremely complex.
> and was it humans who generated so many?
No, it is generated using an algorithm that tries to predict the next word in human written text using the words that comes before it. It ingests basically all the text on the internet to do this, without that much text the LLM performs horribly.
They're not manually generated or anything, it's just a setting. Too few and the model doesn't have enough flexibility to capture complex patterns. Too many and the model can just memorize the data you train it on rather than capturing the patterns driving it.
If you found a way to have a million children who could grow up in one day your analogy would be more apt. In that case you and your children would rightly be considered a threat.
What if in your third analogy you replace millions of students by billions of processes running on machines, each of which can generate output ten thousand times faster than a college educated human?
I grew up in a socialist country before the fall of communism. Us kids of my generation were envious of the flashy lights and billboards that we saw in the movies from the west.
The architecture of pre 20-th century was as flashy and kitschy as the people of the day could make it with the technology at their disposal. Look at the façade ornamentation and ostentatious spires of the old churches. Or the imposing architecture of 19th century government buildings, with the government often being the king or a bunch of wealthy landowners.
Anyway, I prefer the architecture reflecting the hustle of today’s commerce to the one made to glorify the past authorities.
"The architecture of pre 20-th century was as flashy and kitschy as the people of the day could make it with the technology at their disposal."
That's somewhat of an overstatement. I understand why people like modernist architecture but that's a different matter altogether to plastering over any architecture—modern or ancient—with a mishmash of billboards and ad posters. Modern architects don't want their works defaced either.
On the matter of façades and ornamentation of pre 20th Century architecture, no doubt some were ostentatious by the standards of the day, as are many buildings of the modern era, but many were not. Moreover, what passed for 'ostentatiousness' in one era would be matter-of-fact in another. For example, if you took late Victorian architecture back a hundred years say to Georgian era (ca ≈1720—1820), it'd be considered scandalous.
That said, there were and still are longstanding rules about ornamentation on buildings such as friezes and moldings. These conventions have stood the test of time and go right back to Ancient Greece and Rome. For instance, curves such ovolo, ogee and cyma just to name a few haven't changed one iota since those days several millennia ago (I have woodworking tools that cut those shapes precisely right to the correct mathematical curves—that's how fussy many people still are even these days—much more so than I am).
They've stood the test of time because people of every age—ancient and modern—consider them beautiful and harmonious.
Of course, that doesn't mean modern stuff is bad, the objection is that ads screw up both ancient and modern architecture because they don't pay credence to the existing architecture, they are there solely to distract for the purpose of selling, that is that they are purposely disruptive and break the harmony of the landscape whether it be modern or ancient.
When you’re on H1-B you’re applying for the green card through your employer, which is a multi-year process. So even if you find an employer who will sponsor it, you’ll be going back to the end of the line.
Only after labor and then I-140 have been approved, which together typically take more than a year. Also, many employers won’t start your green card application until you’ve been there for a year.
I’ve done the paperwork myself for a H1B transfer as an employer. Maybe my memory isn’t serving me well, but I don’t remember it taking more than a few weeks to a month. (This was 5 yrs ago maybe my experience is dated). I definitely remember paying additional fees to prioritize every application which significantly sped up everything.
To be clear: You are saying that if you are working in the US, having already been granted an H1-B visa, it takes more than a year to complete an H1-B transfer?
Or are you talking about green cards, which is a completely different thing?
You replied to my comment, in which I’m explicitly talking about the green card process. Most people on H1-B are trying to get a green card.
I thought you were talking about transferring the green card process, because I was talking about the green card process. Transfer is possible, but you have to be past a certain point that takes probably a couple of years, which is pretty good compared to how long I had to wait way back when.
Thank you for clarifying. You initially responded to my point about H1-B visas with a different issue with a different immigration process. It is very informative but has nothing to do with H1-B holders as a group categorically.
People used to buy consumer electronic magazines for product reviews, and those magazines had pages of flashy ads at the beginning. I guess that was mafia stuff too. Or just one of million examples of an advertising-based business model.
The condescension is unnecessary and against the guidelines around here.
Did the phone company put your calls through to your competitor if you paid them to do that or would they be in big trouble for doing so. It's not "advertising" it's getting between you and your customers and tolling the infrastructure to the highest bidder.
The phone company was regulated very heavily as a utility just like google isn't.
Government regulates some parts of telecom business, a lot of it it doesn’t. I couldn’t find any regulations pertaining to yellow pages, that’s why I was asking. I doubt there are any.
I could literally not care less about google's policy, as enforced by google. It is of zero relevance nor significance to anything at all.
Google have deliberately made ads much harder to distinguish from results. They have done so for money and it has been successful. No policy of theirs changes this, excuses this nor makes it go away nor makes it less relevant. I care as much about google's "policy" on google's clear misbehaviour as I do about mafia citing their "code" in a criminal trial. You should try assuming people lie for money when there are no consequences until shown to be otherwise.
Try all the standard, accepted and common google ad techniques on yellow pages ads and see how far you get. I'm betting on that being nowhere and usually because it is illegal.
So… no evidence? Putting ads at the top of the page is nothing like your original claim that Google lets advertisers impersonate other businesses. I didn’t ask if you care about Google’s policy on impersonation, but whether you have an example where I type business name X and Google shows me an ad that says it will take me to X but it takes me somewhere else.
What can or can’t be done in yellow pages is irrelevant. I also can’t click on things in yellow pages, does that mean presenting links should be illegal?
They don't care about impersonation at all but yes it happens as is evidenced in this very thread.
What they want is for the majority of punters using google to search for the url for xyz corp to click the ad for that url rather than that same url the search result. This is why they changed the ads to look like search result and put them above. It's incredibly lucrative. It's exactly what MBA types talk about monetisation of the infrastructure to "toll the way." And the rest of us refer to as "protection money." That was and remains the claim. It's pretty solid.
But good on you for sticking up for google so hard, it's unfashionable to take the side of the gazillion dollar behmoth with all the market power and it needs to be respected that you're trying.
I think you’re under the impression that google.com is some sort of a public good, while it’s actually a privately owned platform. I think your issue might be with capitalism. Or maybe it’s with people who don’t want to switch to another search platform, or with people who click on ads instead making sure they scroll down to the first link that’s not an ad. In any case, nobody’s forcing you or anyone else to be one of those people.
If G bought Bing or DuckDuckGo or any of the alternative search engines that appear as choices in people’s browsers, and not just that but did so under a threat of violence, you’d be right to call it a mafia. If it threatened to kneecap Apple executives to be the default search engine on their devices instead of paying Apple billions yearly for the privilege you’d be right to call it a mafia. Otherwise they don’t extort anyone any more than any property owner asking to be paid for use of their property.
There’s a lot of shady shit that Google does, but it’s childish and silly to expect a trillion plus company to be some embodiment of a non-capitalist utopia embedded in a capitalist society, and call them mafia if they fall short of that ideal.
I might be shilling for Google, but your great hope is the government? Haven’t those people been known to employ deadly force at home and overseas in all kinds of disgusting ways?
