They’re not wrong though. The frequency with which these things still just make shit up is astonishingly bad. Very dismissive of a legitimate criticism.
They are NOT as unaware of things as we are. That’s like someone seeing a software developer googling stuff and saying “see, they don’t know much more than me”.
An expert refreshing their knowledge on Google is not the same as a layman learning it for the first time. At all.
> in no universe is that a legitimate ML interview question
Why not? This seems like the ML equivalent of FizzBuzz. If you don't know how matrix multiplication works well enough to implement it, I would argue that you don't know what you're doing at all.
I think the time estimates depend heavily on the field. A mathematician recently told him that it would take him 1-2 weeks (with nothing else to do in that time) to digest a paper outside his main area.
This was also a problem a decade ago. I asked a professor for research opportunities and ended up segmenting a bunch of images. That was it. No credit for that work, either (or pay).
If you seriously don’t think this will be widely abused, then you’re extremely optimistic.
Spreading propaganda is the most obvious use case, assuming the resource requirement remains high. I don’t think it’s far-fetched either. If these models become less resource-hungry, then we’re in for much worse.