[lofaszvanitt]

When a person is using LLMs for work and the result is abysmal, that person must go. So easy. LLMs will make people dumber in the long term, because the machine thinks instead of them and they will readily accept the result it gives if it works. This will have horrifying results in 1-2 generations. Just like social media killed people's attention spam.

But of course we don't need to regulate this space. Just let it go, all in wild west baby.

[fhd2]

It's the curse of our industry that we have such long feedback cycles. In the first year or so of a new system, bad code is similarly productive than good code, and often faster or at least cheaper to produce.

Now a few more years down the line, you might find yourself in a mess and productivity grinds to a halt. Most of the decision makers who caused this situation are typically not around anymore at that point.

[thatcat]

California passed regulations based on model size.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

[1propionyl]

It was not signed into law, it was vetoed by the governor.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SB-1047-Ve...

[migro23]

Thanks for the link. Reading the rationale for not signing the legislation the governor wrote

> "By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 - at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good".

This doesn't make much sense to me. Smaller models might be more dangerous so lets not place safeguards on the larger models because they advance in favor of the public good? Some pretty big assumptions are made here, does this make sense to anyone else?

[LtWorf]

It makes sense to think he got bribed.

[migro23]

If true, that's pretty sad.