A political social network has latched on to a handful of politically active academics whose views are the vast minority in their field, who keep making wrong predictions and denying verifiable facts, but retain a large following. Bluesky recognizes this pattern with climate denial, but not with AI
The dream people have of AI suddenly and inexplicably disappearing is definitely not going to happen but it would make for a great premise for a science fiction novel.
The hugging face incident is a great opportunity to tell your family something that makes them think you're crazy.
I, for one, do not think that Yoshua Benjio and Geoffrey Hinton are worried about existential AI risk because of the sex people are having 3,000 miles away in a different country.
Right now when someone writes an op ed against AI regulation with AI it's just cringe. Pretty soon it will be creepy.
AI was a lot of fun to work on when it didn't work.
Despite being a moderate AI user both at home and at work, I still suspect it has overall made my life on net worse, by having to constantly be on guard for spam in everything I read.
I think bluesky would be surprised to learn that the trans community has had vastly more impact on AI than Peter Thiel has.
This is the gap between the Twitter and Bluesky discussion of AI, and the Twitter side is right.
Another possibility is that humans lie in the "low samples, high compute" quadrant that research hasn't really explored. Until recently a breakthrough there wouldn't have had much effect on LLMs because we had samples, but now with RL it would.
