They are smart, but they are not aware of the environment they're in, or any implicit context that someone whose doing a job carries with them, that's why all of that context has to be explicitly laid out in a prompt. When the context is provided, they are quite smart.
> Why on earth would you go out of your way to do that? If someone wants to try it, why stop them? She just took it for granted that their job was to enshrine the existing state of things in a formal law.
This is exactly the Canadian experience: restrictions without thought.
> You're not really solving problems, you're retrieving the best match of solved problems from compressed corpus.
This is not correct. LLMs interpolate in a high dimensional space, so you're actually composing the best matches in a compressed corpus to find novel points/paths in that space. That is problem solving.
> that the infrastructure being built and compute commitments being made are being done so at a level that demands that generative AI and AI compute generate over $2 trillion in annual revenue by 2030
That seems doable. Next generation architectures and the models they produce are accelerating progress. More capable with less data and compute, which ironically will drive more demand, aka Jevon's paradox.
> If you are someone in the executive team of any major tech company, know that your employees are, for the most part, completely and utterly miserable.
I agree this is a problem. Adopting too eagerly and too early, and not listening to feedback from the people who are using these tools is a recipe for disaster.
> Healthy democracies will still have investigative journalism, public debate, trustworthy institutions, etc.
Boy do I wish that were the case. Investigative journalism is rare now and instead favours activist journalism, public debate is hard (but getting better), and institutional trust is at all time lows, for various reasons.
People will muddle through regardless, we're not as fragile as most assume.
> We’re in an era now where every image and video (and for that matter audio) is potentially fake; where knowing what’s real and true is no longer possible.
This was always the case. Spin and propaganda are not new, the way it's conveyed has just become a bit easier. People are not as susceptible to misinformation as most assume, they recalibrate how much stock they put into the things they see based on the quality of the information environment. Basically everyone knows now that the internet has a low signal to noise ratio.
No, this really hasn't always been the case. At least not in the sense it is today.
20 years ago your misinformation came from television, radio, and print. All of those things were expensive to produce and there was an implicit need for them to be at least vaguely believable and reliable, because their existence depended on it to continually generate revenue.
- Today, a single person produce 100% AI-generated media for basically the cost of their time.
- That media is as high quality as anything else out there.
- Social media platforms provide the delivery system for free.
- There's no real way to tell if there's even a real person behind the name/pseudonym used for posting it. It might be a person, it might be an algorithm, it might be a nation-state. You have no way to know.
At my core, I do believe it's a good thing, so don't try to frame things as if I'm ethically opposed to the overarching idea here.
It's that the powers-that-be have and always will have more resources to bring to bear than the individual will have to combat them. And right now we're moving at absolute break-neck speed to invent technologies that can be used undermine us individually as well as collectively at ease and scales heretofore never seen.
I believed for a long time that the information age would be the great liberator - the great balancer. But we're on the precipice right now of governmental and societal collapsem and it has everything to do with the massive proliferation and preponderance of either misinformation, or agenda-aligned (shaped) information.
Anti-vax, Antifa, ACAB, conspirituality, QAnon, etc., etc., have all had an enormously negative impact, and we're still in misinformation infancy, and lucky that the leadership in goverment is so old that they're not particularly great at bending these technologies to bear on us. But that's not always going to be the case.
Sorry, but none of the factors you mention are particularly important IMO. At worst they cause a temporary blip that adversely affects some people before they recalibrate their expectations of the information environment they're in. People are simply not as vulnerable to this stuff as the chicken littles crying about misinformation think they are. All of the failure modes of media that you name have happened before, and people adapted.
It depends on the type of MTP. If you're using two models, draft + full, then arguably yes, the larger model isn't providing much benefit if you really are seeing 100% acceptance rates. There are other forms of speculative decoding that work within the larger model by itself though, eg. Qwen has additional speculative decoding attention heads, so there is no secondary drafting model.
They are smart, but they are not aware of the environment they're in, or any implicit context that someone whose doing a job carries with them, that's why all of that context has to be explicitly laid out in a prompt. When the context is provided, they are quite smart.
reply