AI's real superpower: consuming, not creating

The docs I upload are ones I'd be OK getting leaked. That also includes code. Even more broadly, it also includes whatever pics I put onto social media, including chat groups like Telegram.

This does mean that, useful as e.g. Claude Code is, for any business with NDA-type obligations, I don't think I could recommend it over a locally hosted model, even though the machine needed to run a decent local model might cost €10k (with current price increases due to demand exceeding supply), that the machine is still slower than what hosts the hosted models, that the rapid rate of improvement means a 3-month delay between SOTA in open-weights and private-weights is enough to matter*.

But until then? If I'm vibe coding a video game I'd give away for free anyway, or copy-editing a blog post that's public anyway, or using it to help with some short stories that I'd never be able to charge money for, or uploading pictures of the plants in my garden right by the public road… that's fine.

* When the music (money for training) stops, it could be just about any provider whose model is best, whatever that is is likely to still get distilled down fairly cheaply and/or some 3-month-old open-weights model is likely to get fine-tuned for each task fairly cheaply; independently of this, without the hyper-scalers the supply chains may shift back from DCs to PCs and make local models much more affordable.

I don't really buy this post. LLMs are still pretty weak at long contexts and asking them to find some patterns in data usually leads to very superficial results.

My counterpoint to this is, if someone cannot verify the validity of the summary then is it truly a summary? And what would the end result be if the vast majority of people opted to adopt or deny a position based on the summary written by a third party?

This isn't strictly a case against AI, just a case that we have a contradiction on the definition of "well informed". We value over-consumption, to the point where we see learning 3 things in 5 minutes as better than learning 1 thing in 5 minutes, even if that means being fully unable to defend or counterpoint what we just read.

I'm speficially referring to what you said: "the speaker used some obscure technical terminology I didn't know" this is due to lack of assumed background knowledge, which makes it hard to verify a summary on your own.

I have to agree. People moan that the ai summary is rubbish but that misses the point. If i need a quick overview of a subject i don't necessarily need anything more then a low quality summary. It's easier then wading through a bunch of blogs of unknown quality.

I have a counterpoint from yesterday.

I looked up a medical term, that is frequently misused (eg. "retarded"), and asked the Gemini to compare it with similar conditions.

Because I have enough of a background in the subject matter, I could tell what it had construed by its mixing the many incorrect references with the much fewer correct references in the training data.

I asked it for sources, and it failed to provide anything useful. But once I am looking at sources, I would be MUCH better off searching and only reading the sources might actually be useful.

I was sitting with a medical professional at the time (who is not also a programmer) and he completely swallowed what Gemini was feeding him. He commented that he appreciates that these summaries let him know when he is not up to date with the latest advances, and he learnt alot from the response.

As an aside, I am not sure I appreciate that Google's profile would now associate me with that particular condition.

Scary!

Curious, what did you get out of it? Counseling? Some action plan? A reflection? Seems intriguing to do, but would like to know how it helped you exactly if you don’t mind sharing.

I disagree, what ai brings to thr table is instant and total recall of our thoughts/notes/experiences. Deep analysis of that vast data storage is only possible via ai, which should trigger the aha!!! Moment, or the "you're crazy ai" moment. Either way, it's very useful. And we haven't even talked about the knowl she we have collecting digital dust in emails, and notes and reports of past employees.

Is this like your belief? Transformers et al were invented by researchers with the explicit goal of surveillance and mass profiling? You think maybe that could have been an unintended effect of something/someone else? Or it's all the researchers fault?