Confusing enough that I see ads from major retailers mixing it up (or maybe it's on purpose?) listing "Airpods Pro 4" only to click the link and see it's the Airpods 4.
'only'? A web developer did not cost 12*30=360$ an hour in 2015, and that's assuming that going "ugh, whatever. I'll just hide the problem with overflow:hidden instead of finding the underlying cause" takes him or her 2 minutes and isn't already the dev's initial reaction
Another way of looking at it is using as much electricity as a normal person in a high-income country uses across ~3 days to add overflow:hidden in the end. Of course, the path to get there did a lot more, but you don't know that beforehand if you don't take a quick peek and make an architectural decision about what the solution should be that gets implemented
It'd be $8.52 in 2015 dollars, but certainly they are the ones who mentioned the $12 amount not you, so I'll put that aside.
Far more importantly, you would not get billed for 2 minutes of work for this if you paid a developer to fix it. At best, half hour increments for the fix. But more likely, for the full hour. Also, in this comparison, the consultant is on call every day, morning, afternoon, evening, for whatever you wanted and will jump on the job immediately.
Did OP get called to fix this bug and bill in half-hour increments for it? I was assuming the scenario where it's a hired developer doing their thing as part of their regular workday (they write "I noticed a glitch"), writing a new feature and noticing the problem as they look at what they made
In an expensive consultant scenario where this is the only thing they need to do that day for this customer, yeah sure if you can ask a computer to replace a whole billing cycle then that is cheaper, at least when ignoring the climate externalities that come due later (idk how to price that in)
...and won't mind if you change your mind. And again. And again. And again for as long as you care to iterate your design, experiment with a business user over your shoulder, etc. etc. etc. People routinely avoid throwing away work because they get emotionally attached to it, even if they get paid by the hour. LLMs just do as they are told, and thats worth a lot.
I think one hypothesis along these lines is that, if allowed, due to the limitations of human language you described, LLMs will gravitate towards "inventing" their own language (which, due to training pressures, may even resemble english from the outside, but contain deeper, "true", meaning within), but that we should do our best to prevent this even if it bottlenecks reasoning capabilities since it would cut off our ability to read its "true" thoughts and detect misalignment
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning models “think” in natural language understandable by humans. Monitoring their “thinking” has allowed us to detect misbehavior such as subverting tests in coding tasks, deceiving users, or giving up when a problem is too hard.
We believe that CoT monitoring may be one of few tools we will have to oversee superhuman models of the future.
We have further found that directly optimizing the CoT to adhere to specific criteria (e.g. to not think about reward hacking) may boost performance in the short run; however, it does not eliminate all misbehavior and can cause a model to hide its intent. We hope future research will find ways to directly optimize CoTs without this drawback, but until then
We recommend against applying strong optimization pressure directly to the CoTs of frontier reasoning models, leaving CoTs unrestricted for monitoring.
We understand that leaving CoTs unrestricted may make them unfit to be shown to end-users, as they might violate some misuse policies. Still, if one wanted to show policy-compliant CoTs directly to users while avoiding putting strong supervision on them, one could use a separate model, such as a CoT summarizer or sanitizer, to accomplish that.
Agreed. Youtube recommendations are genuinely great for me.
Most of the time I'll be recommended so many more good videos than I have time for, that my "watch later" playlist only keeps growing.
Compared with, say, Netflix, where even though I've been rating everything I watch on there for 5+ yrs, the recommendations still barely feel personalized (if anything, it feels like it personalizes which premade "top list" to show me, but not the titles within them...but it does personalize the cover art/thumbnail, lol).
reply