We know Open AI got caught getting benchmark data and tuning their models to it already. So the answer is a hard no. I imagine over time it gives a general view of the landscape and improvements, but take it with a large grain of salt.
We had access to the eval data (since we funded it), but we didn't train on the data or otherwise cheat. We didn't even look at the eval results until after the model had been trained and selected.
The mob responds with a 1-sentence emotional meme. Classic moral panic 101.
It's impossible to fight feelings with logic unfortunately, which is why many western countries are going to fall into this trap and ultimately kill the idea of digital privacy and the open web forever.
This particular moral panic is reaching peak trendiness, and the baptists and the bootleggers are out in full force. Both parties are begging for hamfisted over-reaction from government (the bootleggers and politicians for more nefarious reasons of course).
> The mob responds with a 1-sentence emotional meme. Classic moral panic 101.
it was one person.
im writing this comment 1 hour after yours, and still only a single person has responded and you’ve called one person, a mob. you’ve declared one person commenting to be a “moral panic.”
I shall echo the comment of pibaker with one caveat.
>The exact same sentiment is widely observed across this entire website.
You do see this sentiment across this website, but this doesn't mean that it is a view held by the majority of people here, the people motivated to act can create the illusion that their opinions are more widely held than they are.
A few days ago I posted a comment which, in it's entirety reads
>Perhaps things would work out better if people didn't say mean things regardless of who it's about.
>You can still criticise without being mean.
The comment sits at -4 today, and has one antagonistic response. I don't really think most people disagree with this sentiment.
The antagonistic response came from the same one person as the comment in this thread.
WWII started in 1939 and was done in early 1945, so it didn't take that long.
More importantly, maybe the Nazi's were competent at first, but they absolutely fell apart internally due to mistrust, back stabbing, and demanding of loyalty above all else. Hitler famously made many poor military decisions.
To those responding to the headline, the article seems to use the word neutral in an odd way. They aren't saying that SV is neutral, they're defining neutrality as 'working with who is in power, regardless of who is in power'. That definition may or may not be correct, but discuss the article in that context.
I tend to agree. In this version of "neutrality" we'd have to believe that if MAGA is defeated in the not too distant future (whatever that means) that these people in Silicon Valley would flip to the other side. There's just no way.
> To be silent in the face of oppression isn't neutrality. It's implicitly siding with the oppressor.
That's the kind of "I took an edgy course in college" shit that makes people outside the progressive bubble think "society is getting too woke and everyday people are getting left behind."
You can draw a pretty straight line between "my uncle voted for the other guy so I disowned him" and the political/social dysfunction that led to Trump in the first place.
This article isn't for progressives. It's a plea for everyone else to realize what's happening is wrong. If you can't take the barbs out of your language, you're going to offend your audience before they'll even listen to what you're trying to say.
> That's the kind of "I took an edgy course in college" shit that makes people outside the progressive bubble think "society is getting too woke and everyday people are getting left behind."
Nah, that's the "I was raised in Austria and all my history classes where about driving that point home" take.
How did the Nazis ever come to power, one asks? Why didn't anybody stop them? It's because everybody stayed silent until it was too late.
Screw polite meekness. You're either against what's happening or you're a collaborator. It takes people actively speaking out to show others they aren't alone and that not everyone is okay with what is happening.
Collective guilt ( Kollektivschuld) was assigned to Germans after WWII. Meaning every German was labeled guilty of enabling the Nazi regime.Now everybody here can witness how it came about.
You don't know the man, and you don't know all of the details and nuances of the situation he was called into. How then do you think to judge him like that? You're just stereotyping.
Those "details and nuances of the situation he was called into" become completely irrelevant once one is presented with irrefutable evidence that their actions were completely legal. What matters is his conduct after that happened, which was blatant and persistent abuse of power.
Stop justifying and excusing abuse of power, he hurt innocent people, cost the taxpayers $600k in a single incident of abusive and wrongful conduct, and he's now enjoying taxpayer-funded retirement without facing any accountability.
What jury? The payment happened before the trial: "five days before a trial was scheduled to begin in the case, Dallas County officials agreed to pay $600,000 to settle the case".
Any discussion of Tesla without mentioning Musk's actions is missing the most important piece. I heard someone on this site use the term "mind share", as in before Musk decided to alienate his main customer base, Tesla had the biggest "mind share" of any company in the world. I looked forward to buying a Tesla one day. Now, with Musk licking Trumps boots and actively doing very real damage with his work in DOGE and other things, I will literally never buy anything from that company ever again. It doesn't matter what Chinese car companies are doing. It matters that he stands for everything I don't so I will not give him my money.
I'm not sure what you are wanting here, are you actually requiring me to be a bully to affect change?
I can certainly criticize specific things respectfully. If I prioritised demonstrating my moral superiority I could loudly make all sorts of disingenuous claims that won't make the world a better place.
I certainly do not think people should be making exploitative images in Photoshop or indeed any other software.
I do not think that I should be able choose which software those rules apply to based upon my own prejudice. I also do not think that being able to do bad things with something is sufficient to negate every good thing that can be done with it.
Countless people have been harmed by the influence of religious texts, I do not advocate for those to be banned, and I do not demand the vilification of people who follow those texts.
Even though I think some books can be harmful, I do not propose attacking people who make printing presses.
What exactly are you requiring here. Pitchforks and torches? Why AI and not the other software that can be used for the same purposes?
If you want robust regulation that can provide a means to protect people from how models are used then I am totally prepared (and have made submissions to that effect) to work towards that goal. Being antagonistic works against making things better. Crude generalisations convince no-one. I want the world to be better, I will work towards that. I just don't understand how anyone could believe vitriolic behaviour will result in anything good.
And canvases and paint have existed for even longer, but it needs someone skilled to make use of it.
Stable Diffusion enabled the average lazy depraved person to create these images with zero effort, and there's a lot of these people in the world apparently.
So? At the end of the day, regardless of how skilled one has to be to use it, a tool is not considered morally responsible for how it is used. Nor is the maker of that tool considered morally responsible for how it is used, except in the rare case where the tool only has immoral uses. And that isn't the case here.
reply