The non-determinism is part of the allure of these systems -- they operate like slot machines in a casino. The dopamine hit of getting an output that appears intelligent and the variable rewards keeps us coming back. We down-weight and ignore the bad outputs. I'm not saying these systems aren't useful to a degree, but one should understand the statistical implications on how we are collectively perceiving their usefulness.
The other thing to note is that journalism in the US has gotten really lazy. A lot of the articles you will see in the MSM are based on leaked info and press-releases from PR firms, etc. It's easier to for journalists to regurgitate stories hand-fed to them than doing truly hard and costly investigative work.
I think it's less laziness than the fact that the news media has been in a constant state of disruption since the internet. It's a much riskier business than it used to be.
Agree with this. Human language is also not very information-dense; there is a lot of redundancy and uninformative repetition of words.
I also wonder about the compounding effects of luck and survivorship bias when using these systems. If you model a series of interactions with these systems probabilistically, as a series of failure/success modes, then you are bound to get a sub-population of users (of LLM/LLRMs) that will undoubtedly have “fantastic” results. This sub-population will then espouse and promote the merits of the system. There is clearly something positive these models do, but how much of the “success” is just luck.
Excellent blog post. Summed up what I've been thinking for the past few years. I find myself endlessly consuming content (videos, podcasts, etc.) that I would deem "educational". It feels good, like you're learning something new, improving yourself. But at the end-of-the day you aren't. Your brain is just sitting there passively - not really doing any hard work. Instead of your brain generating ideas and solving problems, that process has been palmed off to the internet.
I feel like if you are the kind of person who builds or fixes things, there are certain topics that could be worth watching in your free time because they let you look over the shoulders of experts to grain some general understanding that you might not otherwise get exposed to.
For example, I watch a channel run by a guy who repairs cars for a living because he's entertaining to watch, not because I want to be a mechanic. Watching his channel is MOSTLY entertainment for me but after years of watching, I have learned enough about car maintenance that I'd would feel comfortable at least attempting a wide variety of repairs on my own cars that I would have never even considered attempting otherwise.
On the flip side, I do think that passively consuming "edu-tainment" content is better than consuming, say, fictional sitcoms or dramas that are intended to appeal to the masses. Not that there's anything wrong with consuming "mindless" entertainment either, just that in a conversation about productivity vs non-productivity and "consumption"'s effects on it, I think it's fair to rank the content in question.
I watch a ridiculous amount of this type of content. As a "maker" myself, I get inspired by watching other people make stuff .. and I pick up a few tips and tricks along the way too.
But, the trap here that a lot in the comments seem in-tune with, is the trap of deluding yourself into thinking that you're being productive by consuming content ... as opposed to, well, producing stuff.
My wife and I are part time performing magicians, and when it comes to our magic act we fall into this trap a LOT. Because I make good money as a software engineer, I wanted to create for us a "library" where no matter what we want to write or create we will have resources that will empower us with method possibilities. Sounds great on paper, until we look back on what we accomplished in the past weeks and all we can come up with "Well, we read a bunch of books... and some are super expensive and hard to find out of print magic books that only have < 1,000 known copies in existence ... does that count?"
No, it doesn't. Some of the most innovative inventions and artistic creations have been borne from scarcity and limitations. An over-abundance of information is not necessarily bad it's just that we tend, as humans, to find ways to trick ourselves into thinking we're accomplishing something when we're really being passive.
To circle back to my original point, while watching "edu-tainment" content on YouTube is still being passive, at least there is the capacity to gain high-level knowledge that can give you a head's start when you're ready to actually start diving into doing something.
A lot of these instances seem to describe meteorites. I don't see a connection to lightning at all. Also, it's pretty crazy that the ball lightning phenomenon has been around for a while, yet it hasn't been replicated in a lab.
Interesting, I built an app that does something similar with respect to converting forecasts to trades, allowing forecasters to trade their predictions (in hidden market) for points (not real money).
