Excellently.

I got invited to an interview at an absurdist variety show with these weird ethnic undertones (this would be a hassle to explain, just imagine that part of the show is that everyone there is putting on an exaggerated redneck act). They apparently got wind of some scientific publication I was involved with and for some reason decided it would be a great piece of entertainment to have me on. My colleagues were thrilled about this 'now or never' opportunity but I had a strong gut feeling that these people weren't about to laugh with me. Thought about it for a minute and then responded nope, hard pass. Still probably one of the best decisions of my life.

What a disingenuous comparison. This woman didn't start an insurrection. This is like if Putin had prevented Prigozhin from running, which he would have been completely in his rights to.

Now of course one could make some damning argument about the state of the tech industry in practice, resulting in one of those bell curve memes with "using SQLalchemy is a sin" on both far sides and "noooo it's just a name it's fine there's no fraud involved" in the middle

A lot of games allow you to adjust the difficulty mid game. I've played several games on "ultra masochist hard" only to lower the difficulty for the bullshit final boss (looking at you Kena).

I did some thinking about which political faction would stand to gain from making up a story such as this, and now I can confidently say that I am more confused than I was before

Reading this comment section is so strange. Skepticism about generative AI seems to have become some kind of professional sport on the internet.

Consensus in our group is that generative AI is a great tool. Maybe not perfect, but the comparison to the metaverse is absurd: no one asked for the metaverse or needed it for anything, as opposed to several cases where GPT has literally bailed us out of a difficult situation. e.g. some proof of concept needed to be written in a programming language that no one in the group had enough experience with. With no GPT, this could have easily cost someone a week. With GPT assistance -- proof of concept ready in less than a day.

Generative AI does suffer from a host of problems. Hallucinations, jailbreaks, injections, reality 101 failures, believe me I've encountered all these intimately as I've had to utilize GPT for some of my day job tasks, often against its own better judgment and despite its own woefully lacking capacity to deal with the task. What I think is interesting is a candid discussion: why do these issues persist? What have we tried? What techniques can we try next? Are these issues intractable in some profound sense, and constitute a hard ceiling for where generative AI can go? Is there an "impossibility theorem for putting AI on autopilot"? Or are these limitations just artifacts we can engineer away and route around?

It seems like instead of having this discussion, it's become in vogue to wave around the issues triumphantly and implicitly declare the field successfully dunked on, and the discussion over. That's, to be blunt, reductive. Smartphones had issues, the early internet had issues. Sure, "they also laughed at Bozo the clown" and all that, but without a serious discussion of the landscape right now, of how far away we are from mitigating these issues and why, a lot of this "ha ha suck it AI" discourse strikes me as deeply performative. Like, suppose a year from now OpenAI solves hallucinations. The issue is just gone. Do all the cool kids who sneered at the invented legal precedents, crafted their image as knowing better than the OpenAI dweebs, elegantly implied how hallucinations are a cornerstone in how the entire field is a stupid useless dead end -- do they lose any face? I think they don't. I think this is why this sneering has become such a lucrative online professional sport.

An old anecdote from my alma mater -- in an introductory course to discrete math, the professor was teaching combinatorics and began: "Suppose you have an urn with three balls inside colored red, green and blue..." At this point one of the students interjected: "Half the class are electrical engineering majors, how is any of this relevant to our studies?" there was a beat and the professor corrected himself: "Suppose you have an urn with three resistors inside colored red, green and blue..."

You lack vision, but I see a place where people get blocked and their questions opened then immediately closed as duplicates. Opened and closed, opened and closed all day, all night. Soon, where the internet once stood will be a string of condescending experts, admonitions that "you shouldn't do that, do Y instead", pleas for information closed as off-topic. Passive aggression, spiteful ego contests and wonderful, wonderful karma meters reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful.

These sorts of vague sentiments, "why is the news full of negativity? And have you noticed common sense is very far from common?" are always popular -- right up until one is forced to put a finer point on what popular opinions exactly need to lose support because they lack common sense, and which ongoing crisis exactly needs to have less media exposure so as to increase the ambient positivity