> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want.
I really want to challenge this idea. Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want.
If I had practically unlimited money I wouldn't ever think of funding a news organisation and then only have it produce content that customers wanted. I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
> Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want.
Failing businesses.
> I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I never said that business is inherently in conflict with ethics, and I, as an entrepreneur myself, believe that ethics are necessary for business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951447
> I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
I claimed that his decision is simply in line with his personal interests. Whether those are financial interests or political interests is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the decision was bad for The Washington Post. Compare to Twitter/X: Elon Musk is indisputably using the social network he acquired for his personal political interests, and that has indisputably been bad for the business, driven away users and advertisers, and his creditors have vastly downgraded the value of the investment.
> Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
This seems like a nonsequitur. How is "Neoliberalism" relevant? Is that what you believe I proposed? If so, you're wrong.
I quoted the bit I wanted to react to, namely the idea that businesses have to give customers what they want. I read that as strongly influenced by an economically driven - rather than morally driven - world view.
Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business, except for some extreme definition of 'failing'.
I meant to argue against your first assertion, not your second; I'm not concerned with whether it's a bad financial decision or not.
> I quoted the bit I wanted to react to, namely the idea that businesses have to give customers what they want. I read that as strongly influenced by an economically driven - rather than morally driven - world view.
It's simply practically driven. You can try to give people what they "need" rather than what they want, but in a free country and a free market system, people cannot be force-fed. They can choose whether or not to buy what you're selling. All the good intentions in the world will go nowhere if nobody is listening.
> Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business
True, but I wasn't referring to that. Ruthless profit maximization is not the same as giving the majority of prospective customers what they want. The former isn't required, but the latter is usually required to sustain the business.
Imagine if a grocery store stocked only healthy food and got rid of all the junk food. It would go out of business, because people want their junk food and will go elsewhere for it.
Donald Schön’s work on this topic is really enlightening. It’s not just that there’s knowledge in the heads of people that can’t be linguistically expressed well, but also that expression of it requires interaction with a specific situation.
This is also represents a massive gap for AI systems to become actual in-the-world problems solvers.
Finding a proof is a search in a large space, akin to searching from abstractions to concretions. LLMs don’t do anything like this, and so you’re looking at the planning problem again. It’s not clear to me how framing this particular problem as a language problem is helpful in any case.
IIUC, any sensible way of "pairing up" these things will mean that anything you get out will be true. But the search might take millennia, and the outcome might be nothing (equivalently, "the LLM's conjecture is false").
The final state in chess is a single* state which yes, then branches out to N checkmate configurations and then N*M one-move-from-checkmates, and so on. (*Technically it's won/lost/draw.)
The equivalent final state in theorem proving is unique to each theorem so such a system would need to handle an additional layer-of-generalization.
Is this how some of the more advanced chess engines work, or even the not so advanced ones, where there's a point at which it stops searching the forward move tree in greatest depth, and instead starts searching backwards from a handful of plausible (gross move limit-bound) checkmate states looking for an intersection with a shallow forward search state?
Language models are currently the best AI systems that solve general reasoning problems, including mathematical ones. So it seems more than obvious to model the problem of finding proofs as a language problem.
I remain sceptical about any form of combination of reinforcement learning and LLMs.
Acting successfully in the world when faced with complex issues requires learning useful ad-hoc concepts from the specific situation you find yourself in. It's plausible an AI can learn template tactics from large datasets, but I don't think that's enough.
There are various fields, like creativity research and design thinking, where it's understood that non-trivial problems need interaction with the environment to frame a problem in a way that allows an approach to a solution. This is because of the uniqueness and novelty in the situation itself.
It might be my lack of imagination, but I don't see how a deep learning on a large data set will get there.
MXX Music develops AI music editing technology. We are currently developing our Audition Pro desktop application, which allows a recorded stereo music track to be automatically re-edited to fit the narrative of a video. We are looking for a mid-level or senior Qt/QML C++ person to help bring our prototype to market.
The code base is new, so mostly modern C++14. Qt/QML, Mac/Windows/Linux, Boost, FFMPEG. Experience with backend technologies and Google Cloud would be a plus.
We prefer on-site, but if you feel your skills are a good fit, then please do contact us. Remote is possible, but would have to include a couple of months on-site first.
I really want to challenge this idea. Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want.
If I had practically unlimited money I wouldn't ever think of funding a news organisation and then only have it produce content that customers wanted. I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.