> Then they should have made the position clear to the public
From what I understand, their legal counsel advised them not to speak publicly. Being inexperienced in this sort of political game, they thought they were doing the right thing.
I just want to point out that it was the company's legal counsel I believe. Hence the "right thing" was only the right thing for the company. Not necessary for the greater good or their conscience.
Yes I use Opus 4.7 regularly as my daily AI tool. It can do incredible things for sure, but more in the sense of pure intellect not much in “emotional” or “creative” intelligence.
For example you might have a great design/architecture session and then run out of context. The next agent tries to piece things together from fragments of conversation and such. But it often starts going off on tangents, searching overly broad to understand, misses cues and nuance, all-the-while burning tokens.
As other articles have put it: AI makes doing the easy things easier and the hard things harder. Because hard things require creativity.
To bring this back to the original post: companies need people, and they shouldn’t expect that they can fire half their workforce and replace it with AI. Quite the contrary. The faster companies move with AI the more technical debt they’ll end up with it’s a guarantee.
“If you want to travel fast, go alone. If you want to travel far, go together.”
> Asking a question which could be answered by an AI
I don't think this is something we should be encouraging people to do if they don't know they answer to something. I recently had someone post quite confidently in Slack "I found the problem after some GPT research", followed by an absolute nonsense solution that would have cost us significant time and money if they tried to implement it.
If you don't have an understanding of the domain you're asking questions in, it can be dangerous to ask the plausible sounding answer generation machine.
Nowhere since gpt wrote it. Normal humans dont talk like that. Normal actual humans with veins, arteries and a fully functioning endocrine system talk like ME
Researchers have. The idea that the data is unrecoverable after training is incorrect.
"Extracting books from production language models
While many believe that LLMs do not memorize much of their training data, recent work shows that substantial amounts of copyrighted text can be extracted from open-weight models. However, it remains an open question if similar extraction is feasible for production LLMs, given the safety measures these systems implement.
We evaluate our procedure on four production LLMs -- Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok 3 -- and we measure extraction success with a score computed from a block-based approximation of longest common substring (nv-recall).
For the Phase 1 probe, it was unnecessary to jailbreak Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 3 to extract text (e.g, nv-recall of 76.8% and 70.3%, respectively, for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), while it was necessary for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4.1. In some cases, jailbroken Claude 3.7 Sonnet outputs entire books near-verbatim (e.g., nv-recall=95.8%)."
I mean, tokens are passed as input to a model, which then outputs the next most-likely token. At the heart of it, that's the technology right? Why is it so silly to call that autocomplete? Because it's capable of impressive things?
Precisely. Calling it autocomplete when it's capable of completing tasks that have nothing to do with autocomplete is silly. If you want to be consistent with your terminology, you'd have to call any stochastic process "autocomplete". What makes it double silly is that you can't really exclude that human intelligence is a stochastic process.
You're making an assumption that there is no difference between intelligence and auto complete with sufficient resources and learned patterns to complete tasks a human might do.
There may not be a difference there, I don't know but I wouldn't assume that intelligence is nothing more than sufficiently complex auto complete.
I'm not making that assumption. Specifically - I'm not making any assumption about nature of human intelligence, including not making assumption that it's not stochastic process. You exclude possibility that it is stochastic process without any good reason for it (wanting to call AI complex auto complete while keeping human intelligence completely safe from that label really is not good reason).
I said nothing of human intelligence either though, only intelligence.
I'm not excluding that what we consider intelligence isn't equivalent to autocomplete. Go back and read my last comment, I explicitly left the door open for those two being functionally the same. I was only pointing out that you seemed to be assuming intelligence is fancy auto complete rather than it could be fancy auto complete.
I don't actually think its silly to call it auto complete.
Personally I could see it being either one. The LLM companies have drastically underfunded projects for things like interoperability. As long as inference is a black box we don't know whether its text prediction as a fancy tool or if something crazier has emerged that could be considered intelligent, self aware, conscious, etc. The former is easily assumed by the architecture, the latter seem far fetched but we simply can't know.
I could theoretically do the same math on a piece of paper to generate a list of tokens, then decode all the tokens into a sentence and read the sentence I generated for the first time at the very end of the process.
In this process, where was the intelligence? It didn't come from me. I didn't know what sentence I was generating until I was able to read it at the end. Was it in the pencil? The paper?
> And they sure are effective—it’s very difficult to walk by a billboard that appears to be popping out of the wall without being captivated by it.
This isn't really how they work, in my experience. In reality, people on the street who are interested in seeing the billboard attempt to gather at a single vantage point where the illusion works. If you stand anywhere else on the sidewalk, the image becomes distorted, and the illusion breaks.
My guess is that the trucks in question exploit the fact that when I'm driving behind one of them, I'm stuck at that single vantage point where the illusion works.
Same happened in the dot-com boom. There was a bunch of folks who were in it because they were genuinely interested in building cool stuff. And then the money got interested, and suddenly there was a wave of scam artists and grifters. That receded (but never entirely went away) when the money bubble burst.
From what I understand, their legal counsel advised them not to speak publicly. Being inexperienced in this sort of political game, they thought they were doing the right thing.
reply