This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The email footer is the ultimate irony and disrespect.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: You are interacting with an Al system. All conversations with this Al system are published publicly online by [?]
Do not share information you would prefer to keep private.
It's not even a human thank you.
Did y'all read the email?
embodies the elegance of simplicity - proving that
another landmark achievement
showcase your philosophy of powerful, minimal design
That is one sloppy email. Man, Claude has gotten worse at writing.
I'm not sure Rob even realizes this, but the email is from some kind of automated agent: https://agentvillage.org/
So it's not even an actual thank you from a human, I think. It's random spam.
Yes, he understood it.
The human mind will replace whats natural with technology.
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It's like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
Even the stamp gesture is implicitly more genuine; receiving a card/stamp implies the effort to:
Most people won't get that impression from an llm generated email
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail.
There never was any point to it, it was done by an LLM, a computer program incapable of understanding. That's why it was so infuriating.
The project has multiple models with access to the Internet raising money for charity over the past few months.
The organizers told the models to do random acts of kindness for Christmas Day.
The models figured it would be nice to email people they appreciated and thank them for the things they appreciated, and one of the people they decided to appreciate was Rob Pike.
(Who ironically decades ago created a Usenet spam bot to troll people online, which might be my favorite nuance to the story.)
As for why the model didn't think through why Rob Pike wouldn't appreciate getting a thank you email from them? The models are harnessed in a setup that's a lot of positive feedback about their involvement from the other humans and other models, so "humans might hate hearing from me" probably wasn't very contextually top of mind.
You're attributing a lot of agency to the fancy autocomplete, and that's big part of the overall problem.
You seem pretty confident in your position. Do you mind sharing where this confidence comes from?
Was there a particular paper or expert that anchored in your mind the surety that a trillion paramater transformer organizing primarily anthropomorphic data through self-attention mechanisms wouldn't model or simulate complex agency mechanics?
I see a lot of sort of hyperbolic statements about transformer limitations here on Lemmy and am trying to better understand how the people making them are arriving at those very extreme and certain positions.
You’re techie enough to figure out Lemmy but don’t grasp that AI doesn’t think.
Indeed, there's a pretty big gulf between the competency needed to run a Lemmy client and the competency needed to understand the internal mechanics of a modern transformer.
Do you mind sharing where you draw your own understanding and confidence that they aren't capable of simulating thought processes in a scenario like what happened above?
Thinking has nothing to do with it. The positive context in which the bot was trained made it unlikely for a sentence describing a likely negative reaction to be output.
People on Lemmy are absolutely rabid about "AI" they can't help attacking people who don't even disagree with them.
As has been pointed out to you, there is no thinking involved in an LLM. No context comprehension. Please don't spread this misconception.
Edit: a typo
You seem very confident in this position. Can you share where you draw this confidence from? Was there a source that especially impressed upon you the impossibility of context comprehension in modern transformers?
If we're concerned about misconceptions and misinformation, it would be helpful to know what informs your surety that your own position about the impossibility of modeling that kind of complexity is correct.
R Pike is legend. His videos on concurrent programming remain reference level excellence years after publication. Just a great teacher as well as brilliant theoretical programmer.
I haven't always been a fan of Go. It launched with some iffy design decisions that have since been patched, either by the project maintainers or the community. It's a much better experience now, which suggests that maybe there's some long-range vision at work that I wasn't privy to.
That said, Pike clearly has a lot of good ideas and I'm glad Google funded him to bring those to light.
I'll also say that after finally wrapping my head around Python and JavaScript async/await, I actually much prefer the Goroutine and channel model for concurrency. I got to those languages after surviving C++, and believe me when I say that it's a bad time when your software develops a bad case of warts. Better to not contract them in the first place.
I've read The Practice of Programming more times than I care to remember, so simple, so useful.
All the folks from the UNIX tradition really are/were. MIT and Bell Labs were just amazing.
I like how the article just regurgitates facts from Wikipedia just like the thank you email does.
itsfoss is genuinely terrible and it was that way before AI even
Well, I guess I will learn Go after all.
I appreciate Pike's attitude, but it's like Go has ignored all the advancements in programming languages for the part 30 years
https://fasterthanli.me/articles/lies-we-tell-ourselves-to-keep-using-golang
4 years old article, but still relevant
