The turing test is still a thing. No llm could pass for a person for more than a couple minutes of chatting. That’s a world of difference compared to a decade ago, but I would emphatically not call that “passing the turing test”
Also, none of the other things you mentioned have actually happened. Don’t really know why I bother responding to this stuff
Ironically the main tell of LLMs is that are too smart and write too well. No human can discuss the depth of topics they can and no humans writes like a author/journalist all the time.
i.e. the tell that it's not human is that it is too perfectly human.
However if we could transport people from 2012 to today to run the test on them, none would guess the LLM output was from a computer.
That’s not the Turing Test; it’s just vaguely related. The Turing Test is an interactive party game of persuasion and deception, sort of like playing a werewolves versus villagers game. Almost nobody actually plays the game.
Also, the skill of the human opponents matters. There’s a difference between testing a chess bot against randomly selected college undergrads versus chess grandmasters.
Just like jailbreaks are not hard to find, figuring out exploits to get LLM’s to reveal themselves probably wouldn’t be that hard? But to even play the game at all, someone would need to train LLM’s that don’t immediately admit that they’re bots.
Yesterday I stumbled onto a well written comment on reddit, it was a bit contrarian, but good. Then I was curious and looked at their comment history and found it was a one month old account with many comments of similar length and structure. I put a LLM to read that feed and they spotted LLM writing, and the argument? it was displaying too broad a knowledge across topics. Yes, it gave itself up by being too smart. Does that count as Turing test fail?
> No llm could pass for a person for more than a couple minutes of chatting
I strongly doubt this. If you gave it an appropriate system prompt with instructions and examples on how to speak in a certain way (something different from typical slop, like the way a teenager chats on discord or something), I'm quite sure it could fool the majority of people
> America put men on the moon without millions of foreign immigrants
Did you drop out of middle school?
America saw the highest rate of immigration in history between ~1910-1960. A majority of the scientists and engineers in the Apollo program were immigrants or children of immigrants.
> Why is it only ever white nations that are expected to let everyone else in?
They are not, have you considered moving to Russia?
A way to state this point that you may find less uncharitable is that a lot of current LLM applications are just very thin shells around ChatGPT and the like.
In those cases the actual "new" technology (ie, not the underlying ai necessarily) is not as substantive and novel (to me at least) as a product whose internals are not just an (existing) llm.
(And I do want to clarify that, to me personally, this tendency towards 'thin-shell' products is kind of an inherent flaw with the current state of ai. Having a very flexible llm with broad applications means that you can just put Chatgpt in a lot of stuff and have it more or less work. With the caveat that what you get is rarely a better UX than what you'd get if you'd just prompted an llm yourself.
When someone isn't using llms, in my experience you get more bespoke engineering. The results might not be better than an llm, but obviously that bespoke code is much more interesting to me as a fellow programmer)
Are those the actual wireframes they're showing in the demos on that page? As in, do the produced models have "normal" topology? Or are they still just kinda blobby with a ton of polygons
I haven’t tried it myself, but if you’re asking specifically about the human models, the article says they’re not generating raw meshes from scratch. They extract the skeleton, shape, and pose from the input and feed that into their HMR system [0], which is a parametric human model with clean topology.
So the human results should have a clean mesh. But that’s separate from whatever pipeline they use for non-human objects.
I’ve only used the playground. But I think they are actual meshes - they don’t have any of the weird splat noise at the edge of the objects, and they do not seem to show similar lighting artifacts to a typical splat rendering.
For the objects I believe they're displaying Gaussian splats in the demo, but the model itself can also produce a proper mesh. The human poses are meshes (it's posing and adjusting a pre-defined parametric model).
Having the technical knowhow to have an ai generate 3d models, but then generatively compositing those assets together into environments in a way that would have seemed overly simplistic to gamedevs 3 decades ago…
I guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?
I’m not from the us, so can someone give me some real perspective? If you have a couple years experience and you want to make at least ~50k a year, is it actually really hard to find a job in tech right now?
Or is this more about senior people not being able to find ~100k a year jobs as easily?
$50k jobs (in your field) are probably harder to find than $100k jobs. Nobody wants to hire a $50k dev in the US - they'd think there's something wrong with you. In the past you could maybe get something in web dev but that's not exactly a thriving industry these days.
In any case, my impression is that juniors are being hit the hardest. They're the easiest to offshore and the easiest to justify as being replaceable by AI (regardless of how true that actually is).
Junior jobs are very hard to find right now. They are much rarer than they used to be. However, if you are even somewhat capable you could probably find a role if you're willing to accept $50k total comp (which is very low in most areas) just by being willing to work for less than others.
Certainly, anecdotally, that seems to be the case. There are exceptions like interns who have some in. But whether it's AI or some combination of other reasons, it does seem to be more difficult for juniors than at least mid-career professionals.
The current tech job situation in the US is hitting junior developers a lot harder than senior developers, which is why there's a general assumption a lot of it is being driven by the combination of AI and outsourcing.
Whether this is sustainable remains to be seen, there was a big outsourcing trend back in ~2004 in the tech industry here that ended up being somewhat short-lived as many companies realized those efforts were costing them more than they were saving them beyond the short term. Whether or not this time is different with the added AI component, I have no idea. I wouldn't bet on it in either direction.
Its not great out there for senior developers either, but on the senior side its more of a freeze (try not to lose your job because the next one may be very hard to find) whereas on the junior side its more of a clear contraction (keeping your job will be much harder, finding a new one harder still).
Without delving into all the stats, $50K/year is a pretty mediocre salary--certainly in anything resembling a medium to high cost of living area. Your rent will consume a lot of that after taxes without roommates and even a "paid-off" house will probably not be a whole lot less with taxes, insurance, utilities, etc.
Certainly a trailer home in a lot of places but then not clear how easily you'll get that $50K/yr job.
What I struggle with is that it’s hard to derive meaning from purpose when the best I can hope for is improving the lives of others until they are at the same level of comfort as me: struggling to find meaning and happiness.
We can all derive purpose from trying to improve eachothers lives, but if none of us end up happy, what makes that work actually meaningfull?
At some point we need something that is good in and off itself. That’s what happiness is meant to be I think
Is the “remade” ceiling puzzle actually refering to something in the real game? Don’t remember there being any puzzles having to do with something being on the ceiling
(For those who are confused, a few days ago on twitter some random graphic designer / webdev claimed that they started the trend of using dithering in modern graphic design. People made of fun of that person. All of that is unrelated to this post)
Also, none of the other things you mentioned have actually happened. Don’t really know why I bother responding to this stuff
reply