[_uhtu]

This. It's really weird the way we suddenly live in a world where it's the norm to take whatever a tech company says about future products at face value. This is the same world where Tesla promised "zero intervention LA to NYC self driving" by the end of the year in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. The same world where we know for a fact that multiple GenAI demos by multiple companies were just completely faked.

It's weird. In the late 2010s it seems like people were wising up to the idea that you can't implicitly trust big tech companies, even if they have nap pods in the office and have their first day employees wear funny hats. Then ChatGPT lands and everyone is back to fully trusting these companies when they say they are mere months from turning the world upside down with their AI, which they say every month for the last 12-24 months.

[cle]

I'm not sure anyone is asking you to take it at face value or implicitly trust them? There's a 92-page paper with details: https://ai.meta.com/research/publications/the-llama-3-herd-o...

[hnfong]

> In the late 2010s it seems like people were wising up to the idea that you can't implicitly trust big tech companies

In the 2000s we only had Microsoft, and none of us were confused as to whether to trust Bill Gates or not...

[mikae1]

Nobody tells it like Zitron:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/pop-culture/

> What makes this interview – and really, this paper — so remarkable is how thoroughly and aggressively it attacks every bit of marketing collateral the AI movement has. Acemoglu specifically questions the belief that AI models will simply get more powerful as we throw more data and GPU capacity at them, and specifically ask a question: what does it mean to "double AI's capabilities"? How does that actually make something like, say, a customer service rep better? And this is a specific problem with the AI fantasists' spiel. They heavily rely on the idea that not only will these large language models (LLMs) get more powerful, but that getting more powerful will somehow grant it the power to do...something. As Acemoglu says, "what does it mean to double AI's capabilities?"

[MrScruff]

I don't think claiming that pure scaling of LLMs isn't going to lead to AGI is a particularly hot take. Or that current LLMs don't provide a whole lot of economic value. Obviously, if you were running a research lab you'd be trying a bunch of different things, including pure scaling. It would be weird not to. I don't know if we're going to hit actual AGI in the next decade, but given the progress of the last less-than-decade I don't see why anyone would rule it out. That in itself seems pretty remarkable, and it's not hard to see where the hype is coming from.

[RhodesianHunter]

Meta just keeps releasing their models as open-source, so that whole line of thinking breaks down quickly.

[threecheese]

That line of thinking would not have reached the conclusion that you imply, which is that open source == pure altruism. Having the benefit of hindsight, it’s very difficult for me to believe that. Who knows though!

I’m about Zucks age, and have been following his career/impact since college; it’s been roughly a cosine graph of doing good or evil over time :) I think we’re at 2pi by now, and if you are correct maybe it hockey-sticks up and to the right. I hope so.

[RhodesianHunter]

I don't think this is a matter of good or evil, simply a matter of business strategy.

If LLMs end up being the platform of the future, Zuck doesn't want OpenAI/Microsoft to be able to monopolize it.