![]() ![]() On Stanford's web authentication page, enter your SUNet ID and password and then click Login.Below are some links that you might find useful. Time will tell if we are about to slam into a local maxima or if someone finds a significant evolution or better yet stumbles on a way to properly combine LLM for context + NLP with traditional AI/logic/expert systems to engineer something that actually thinks and learns rather than regurgitating statistics.Google carefully documents how to use Shared drives. Which is why it was so easy for other folks to make the same progress in similar time periods. We aren't seeing evolution, just increasing either number of parameters or quality thereof + additional context. That said I think all of this is actually emblematic of a deeper problem with the space which is that none of the LLM stuff recently has been groundbreaking but rather just just continual refinement of a given branch. Patents probably wouldn't work either because the structures are too easily recombined to bypass any conceivable patent that would be enforceable. I.e they can't adequately defend their business with trade secrets. I think their realisation was that the models themselves aren't actually that difficult to replicate even in absence of patent or description. Things changes, waiting for full time "authors" to come up with a profitable plan to just progress is also not an option. I personally write during my free time in my personal ad-free minimalistic website and have list of blogs I track for contents. With the news being mostly propaganda, I don't know what to quote there and how many outlets still have a reputation. So it goes back to that, quoting scientific papers, books and actual reputable and knowledgeable people writing blog posts. Nobody will miss this and we will have again people with real world experience writing knowledge or opinions in their free time. That business model really proved to be worthless, it dragged the quality down with more desperate pay-to-read prompts. What's a news outlet worth paying for? who actually pays for content online? who knows how to block all ads and didn't do that? ![]() That's a valid perspective, but remember that the quality degraded when we started having paid memberships and ads to websites. If chatbots do become popular, I worry about a bleak future where journalism and other writing is replaced by an anonymous blob of underpaid foreign laborers whose only job is to shovel up-to-date facts into chatbot databases. Journalism (and many kinds of writing) would be a less attractive career if your readership consists mostly of people getting second-hand summaries via chatbot. Imagine local news being totally unavailable online by any means because the rise of chatbots means that nobody can make any money writing about local news.Įdit: A first reaction to this might be “have the chatbot show ads and share revenue with its sources.” This probably wouldn’t solve the problem. In the long-term this disincentivizes people from publishing online, which would reduce the quality of not only the chatbot output but the web as a whole. The chatbot user benefits from having one great answer pulled from the best sources (and no ads), but the websites that underpin the chatbot’s usefulness will no longer have monetizable traffic. Who is publishing the information that the chatbot uses to give you 1 concise answer? Depending on the query, it could be Wikipedia or an academic journal, but for many topics the chatbot would need to draw from for-profit ad-supported websites. Mass adoption of AI chatbots seems self-defeating. Maybe there have been some legal precedents to repeal anti-scraping, but this is a very big problem now. The way it's currently set up it's an existential threat to any meaningful content on the web. What is the reason for SO to exist anymore? What is the motivation for people to keep answering and refining the questions? 90% of Stackoverflow will evaporate. If a scraper comes by that inhales all of that data, and regurgitates it under Microsoft's name, giving no credit, no references and absolutely nothing back to the authors of those questions and answers. It gets 90% of its traffic from Google, people show up, read, ask and answer questions (click on jobs and ads to keep SO servers running). Let's take Stackoverflow as an example of a community-produced content. Now, in case of scraping _all_ of public useful information. I'm not sure if I agree with the lawsuit outcomes, but it didn't look like an existential threat to Linkedin or Amazon. These users won't up and leave to another place that scraped Linkedin. Amazon and Linkedin won't die if their analytics leaks, in fact in Linkedin's case all the data was volunteered by the users. So I know from the legal standpoint anti-scraping has been a messy debate, but what is different this time. That's a great question, I'm wondering that myself. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |