It predicts that the next chunk of tokens its trainer expects to see is something like so and so.
If we have AI that predicts chunks of tokens that we understand as meaning that human life is disposable, that says something about us, the trainers, and the shapers.
Similarly, it says something about the people who would be willing to go with what the AI predicts are the expected completions.
“us, the trainers” is a bit of a misnomer, if the training is done mostly by silicon valley cultists like Sam Altman and his ilk, who have shown that they do not understand reality.
us: we generated the content of the internet, the books, etc. I do mean all of us, as the creators of the cultural landscape from which training data was drawn.
the trainers: these are the people who made choices to curate the training sets.
the shapers: these are the people like Altman who hire the trainers and shape what the AIs are for
So there is a progression here: the shapers hire the trainers who choose what to train on from the content that we created.
Oh, sorry! I thought this was like “Mike Tyson, the boxer,…” - an embedded sentence expaining something in more detail!
The actual meaning you meant to convey is much more fitting :)
AI doesn’t have agency, personhood.
It predicts that the next chunk of tokens its trainer expects to see is something like so and so.
If we have AI that predicts chunks of tokens that we understand as meaning that human life is disposable, that says something about us, the trainers, and the shapers.
Similarly, it says something about the people who would be willing to go with what the AI predicts are the expected completions.
Basically Eichmann with extra steps.
“us, the trainers” is a bit of a misnomer, if the training is done mostly by silicon valley cultists like Sam Altman and his ilk, who have shown that they do not understand reality.
Grammatical ambiguity!
I meant it as an actual list:
So there is a progression here: the shapers hire the trainers who choose what to train on from the content that we created.
Oh, sorry! I thought this was like “Mike Tyson, the boxer,…” - an embedded sentence expaining something in more detail! The actual meaning you meant to convey is much more fitting :)
there’s an Oxford comma there, so “us” and “the trainers” are separate entities