That seems awfully harsh, the comment I replied to had done the usual "let's find some reason this is discriminatory" thing and I was pushing back on it. I'm happy to stop commenting.
Lots of decisions in the last 50 years have made "the system" more fragile. This makes me realize that outsourcing trust is another one. This would never happen now because businesses have no connection to their customers, either a payment provider or credit bureau does the vouching which becomes meaningless when things don't operate as usual and human judgement is needed
I have an emergency radio with crank for power outages. I know it probably takes a lot of cranking to charge a phone, but I think that would reduce complexity and make it more universal than having to occupy a specific kind of bike sharing bike
I think I mostly agree, but what kind of credentials or track record would be automatically credible in "AI safety". There are conflicting views and not an agreed upon body of practice for what it means, so yes there are charlatans but also just different viewpoints. Arguable the charlatans stick to some of the more mainstream stuff (if your model passes a "bias" test it's good to go). Whether someone is good or bad at AI safety is still much more of a holistic assessment. Whereas in established industries it would be obvious.
Why do you have to share your contact information to download the model? Otherwise it is licensed under cc-by-sa (gpl-style, changes must be shared) which is a good choice.
To receive AM you just need a non linearity and the x^2 term iirc will do your rectification. So any element that electrically provides some kind of nonlinear behavior (ie is not a pure R, L, or C) should give some sort of modulation.
It's complicated. Startups are always dysfunctional, and it gets magnified by people who aren't used to it. What they say on these sites it almost certainly true, but it's relative, not absolute, so it's hard to get a sense of how outside of norms it is.
Like if someone says none of the execs know what they're doing, it's going to fall apart any day, are they a new grad, someone who's only worked at big companies with everything formalized and an established business, or are they startup veterans. You don't really get that context.
So the best you can do is try to judge it based on your experience. If you find those comments concerning, maybe it's not a good place for you. If you think "yeah everyone says that" then maybe it's ok.
Your company needs the maturity to manage that engineer. Companies with products have customer success and sales etc and their own engineering management and product hierarchy to translate your end user issue into a software fix. That doesn't happen automatically by staffing and engineer in house. How would a company even figure out the profile they need?
Alignment is also a distraction, its OpenAI marketing and something people who don't understand ML talk about, not a serious topic.
Like I said, discussing model politics have a place but bringing it up every time a model is mentioned is distracting and prevents adult discussion. It would be like if every time a company comes up, the thread gets spammed with discussion about the worst thing that company has ever done instead of discussing it in context.
To be fair, it's a stupid distraction from discussing the model. If every thread just turns into politics it would not make for good discussions. People can start threads about specific ideologies that language models have and they can be discussed there (and have been). Bringing that up every time a model is discussed feels off topic and legit to flag (I didn't flag it)
Edit: but now I see the thread has basically been ruined and it's going to be about politics instead of anything new and interesting about the model, congrats everyone.
> This reminds me of a comment elsewhere I also replied to today
Right, looks like you made fun of / were condescendingly dismissive of my comment in another thread, I wouldn't have replied here if I'd realized you were the same person.
Lol is that the strawman that people have come up with, that not liking metas "only do what we allow" license must be anger about competition?
No. A good parallel would be if Microsoft (say) wrote their own linux clone that was compatible but had some proprietary enhancements that made it desirable over open source distros. The only catch being, it wasn't gpl licensed (they wrote it from scratch) it had a proprietary MS license that says you can only use it for things MS approved of, and are using it at their pleasure, to be revoked at any time.
People don't care about the license, they call it open source and move away from gnu/linux to the proprietary MS version, and now we're only doing what they allow us to.
That's exactly what's happening in the ML model world right now, but people are happy with the shiny models Facebook lets them use so they say "what's the big deal".
The license is a wedge that's destroying the meaning of open source, it's worth complaining about, and it's evil to have done it that way. I would have preferred a commercial license that was at least honest instead of a scorched earth ecosystem takeover like they've done. In a sense it's an extension of the big tech "provide something notionally free that's too good not to use and use it to destroy competition" model.