Depends on your life experiences and working environment.
If you have worked in prisons and places with a lot of physical violence you can (some don't) acquire a distinct and accurate sense for emotion and threat, based on sound and body language.
The actual words don't matter so much, but the interaction of tone, distance, stance etc, they tell you a huge amount. People can be saying "no" and be just asking a question or pleading their case, and they can be saying "yes" and mean "i want to kill you". I used to follow the tone, and when it was going to end badly, make sure I was standing behind the person who was about to start violence (being responsible for physical security in that environment), just as it was about to kick off... Pretty grim work. But yes, you can use your intelligence to learn that stuff. Don't need to be a puppy.
Yeah, I think we spend so much of our childhoods, if they are healthy, learning to disregard those signals. Authority figure yelling but will not hurt us. Trust.
We rational humans overthink our first instinct and even learn to ignore it. And it helps us function in traditional society.
So the things I have seen in generative AI art lead me to believe there is more complexity than that.
Ask it do a scifi scene inspired by Giger but in the style of Van Gough. Pick 3 concepts and mash them together and see what it does. You get novel results. That is easy to undert5stand because it is visual.
Language is harder to parse in that way. But I have asked for Haiku about cybersecurity, work place health and safety documents in Shakespearean sonnet style etc. Some of the results are amazing.
I think actual real creativity in art, as opposed to incremental change or combinations of existing ideas, is rare. Very rare. Look at style development in the history of art over time. A lot of standing on the shoulders of others. And I think science and reasoning are the same. And that's what we see in the llms, for language use.
There is plenty more complexity, but that emerges more from embedding, where the less superficial elements of information (such as syntactic dependencies) allow the model to hone in on the higher-order logic of language.
e.g. when preparing the corpus, embedding documents and subsequently duplicating some with a vec where the tokens are swapped with their hex repr could allow an LLM to learn "speak hex", as well as intersperse the hex with the other languages it "knows". We would see a bunch of encoded text, but the LLM would be generating based on the syntactic structure of the current context.
In that it created a circuit inside the shoggoth where it translates between hex and letters, sure, but this is not a straight lookup, it's not like a table, any more than that I know "FF " is 255. This is not stochastic pattern matching any more than my ability to look at a raw hex and see structures, ntfs File records and the like (yes, I'm weird, I've spent 15 years in forensics)- in the same way that you might know some French and have a good guess at a sentence if your English and Italian is fluent.
yeh. I see Dario saying "let's protect the US more" for no reason other than bias and "of course they improved over time" which feels like a mighty strong strain of copium. Very disappointing for a leader of an organization i respected. Assuming he speaks for Anthropic, and it seems he does, Past tense.
The "good" news is that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI are based in Europe, so I don't have to feel like they're burning my taxpayer money.
The "bad" news is that so far I've yet to see a serious contender emerging from that part of the world (although the Middle East has invested heavily in LLMs due to obvious cultural differences).
He writes with the assumption that the reader understands the danger in China developing a lead in military technology. Hence his very explicit wording:
"To be clear, the goal here is not to deny China or any other authoritarian country the immense benefits in science, medicine, quality of life, etc. that come from very powerful AI systems. Everyone should be able to benefit from AI. The goal is to prevent them from gaining military dominance."
You can tell as an academic he wants to give DeepSeek props, at least that is what I would like to believe. The first third has the presenter leaning into "cheap chinese" too many times.
You can get standalone/isolated versions of chatGPT, if your org is large enough, in partnership with OpenAI. And others. They run on the same infra but in accounts you set up, cost the same, but you have visibility on the compute, and control of data exfil - ie is there is none.
