This presumes that the value was created by the authors and not the people who found a way to use the structure in the training set to create intelligence. Like crediting wi-fi router owners with creating Wi-Fi Positioning System instead of the people who realized they could wardrive around to create maps and extract a new kind of value that would never have existed without them. Or Egyptians for deciphering hieroglyphics instead of the Frenchman who realized the Rosetta Stone they were using to hold up a wall could actually be used to do much more.
My thinking here is coming from the paper "From Entropy to Epiplexity"[1] which partly discussed why you can train on synthetic data: it's the structure of the data that enables learning, not just the amount of "information". Authors of images and videos may have worked just as hard as authors of text training sets, but they didn't contribute to AI as much because there just wasn't the same kind of structure to discover there. It's the people who found the usable structure, not the people who accidentally generated it, who created the value.
> This presumes that the value was created by the authors and not the people who found a way to use the structure in the training set to create intelligence.
This presumes it's binary.
> Or Egyptians for deciphering hieroglyphics instead of the Frenchman who realized the Rosetta Stone they were using to hold up a wall could actually be used to do much more.
Yes, I think a lot more than 1 person deserves credit for years of painstaking research.
> It's the people who found the usable structure, not the people who accidentally generated it, who created the value.
You're naively assuming the structure is accidental.
I work at FAANG, and leadership is successfully pushing the urge for speed by stablishing the new productivity expectations, and everyone is rushing as much as they can, as the productivity gain doesn't really match the expectations, and people overwork to make up for this difference. This works very well with internal competition and a quota system for performance ratings, with some extra fear due to the bad job market.
I feel this new world sucks. We have new technology that boosts the productivity of the individual engineer, and we could be doing MUCH better work, instead of just rushed slop to meet quotas.
I feel I'm just building my replacement, to bring the next level of profits to the c-suite. I just wish I wasn't burning out while doing so.
I’ve noticed this dynamic acutely working at YC startups the last 5ish years. Coding has become like a sweatshop.
I don’t think it’s exclusive to startups or tech either, it seems more like a downstream consequence of the fact that there’s no real innovation anymore. Capitalism demands constant growth, and when there are real technological improvements you can achieve that growth through higher productivity. If there are none, you have to achieve that growth through other means like forcing employees to work longer or cutting costs. The alpha is all coming from squeezing the labor force right now.
> it seems more like a downstream consequence of the fact that there’s no real innovation anymore
This doesn't sound right to me. We are currently getting smacked upside the head by an enormous technological innovation. I believe that, even within the framework of capitalism, this problem has social and political roots. The "robber baron" period late 19th century America has strong similarities to what we are seeing today, and technological stagnation was not the cause.
When are we throwing anti-trust at the robber barons? That's the real question.
And as of now, we are not having "technological innovation". We found a new jackhammer and are tearing up the entire house experimenting with it. Maybe when the "shiny new thing" effect wears off we'll get true innovation. But as of now people are just getting paid to show off jackhammers.
How do you define "gambling" though - the YouTube ads I see for crypto trading apps and outright betting apps look very similar. Mind you I don't gamble or "invest" in crypto...
There should be digital riots, where people team up to fight such abusive practices.
Thinking of AdNauseam extension, but next level. Surely there should be a very simple and effective way to disrupt such practices when people organize. Is there any precedent for such thing?
Truthfully, things like uBlock are digital protests. They look different than people marching in a street but they are organized and pushing back against the oppression. But it does look different and isn't as extreme as a riot.
This is super infuriating. I wish there was a way to offshore the effort and work needed to toggle each option off to the culprit website.
Perhaps when website A presents you with such hostile prompts, take their contact email, and subscribe it with automation to each of the vendors. I'm just too tired of this shit.
The real test would have been to use some software that the author uses frequently, and see if there's any decrease in speed when removing all the icons. I'm pretty sure, even when not pleasant, they work as heavy visual cues to find the item quicker.
Icons are also very useful if you're trying to use software in a language that you're learning, becoming the common language bridge.
Yesterday twitter feed was showing me all sorts of people executing this idea fully end to end: creating endless stream of content, selling whatever product or idea, presented as fully human content. Of course with fake AI people, engaging in content to make it look real, and using hooks or sexualized content to make it grab more attention.
Im unsure what the final outcome out of this is, but it makes me sad that we're about to see an explosion of fake content on the internet indistinguishable from real people so soon, if not already, for pure profit, where everything is allowed.
reply