There's obvious synergy here to build a self-sustaining ecosystem-annihilator:
10 Burn AI tokens to develop cryptocurrencies
20 Burn down the rain forest to calculate sha256 faster
30 Sell sha256 hashes to finance AI buildout
40 GOTO 10
Some capitalist enterprises produce valuable goods or services as a byproduct of making money, BTC cuts out those extra steps, efficiently producing pure waste heat.
Playing these games autoregressively isn't even the right way to use the LLM for this task (unless it was trained to do so...). It's somewhat like having a creative writing bechmark but requiring that all the input/output be base64 encoded. It can do it-- but no guarantees on the results!
And it's also just bencmaxxing bait: you can get a huge improvement on the task by RLing on it, but make no improvement on anything else. Doing so would just waste model capacity.
If you could tell that every LLM was equally not being exposed to the task then you could justify it as a test of abstract reasoning, but you can't. So it ends up on how much go transcripts ended up in the training, which is ... not a very interesting metric.
Being you is (presumably) like something: it's nice being you, it's miserable being you, it's exhausting being you, it's invigorating being you... whatever it is like, I can't describe it but you experience it.
You have a subjective internal experience. A thermostat does not. An LLM presumably does not. A dog or a bat [0] presumably does.
It's underperformed the S&P500 over the last 5 years, but you know what they say about past performance not predicting future returns. Maybe AI will unlock an untapped reservoir of ever-greater fools.
OpenAI pushing ads seems like a big fat blinking SELL warning to me.
They claim they are close to creating a Machine God that threatens all human life... but this is the best business plan it can come up with?
Maybe your omnipotent machine could come up with that cure for cancer you keep saying it will, and then you sell that? Or design an innovative new battery? Or, hell, let's be more realistic: Why can't it make really fun iOS games that you can sell? Or generate Marvel quality blockbusters, that should bring in at least a few billion.
The dream was that you could separate content from presentation and content could be adapted and reinterpreted by anyone using whatever tools they choose: User Agents that actually respected the users' vision, not the publishers'.
The posts above claiming design and content are inextricably linked are probably blessed with all the standard senses.
As usual it's a bunch of folks talking past each other. Style and content together is a nice simplification when you want to conform to a particular vision. Separation is a nice abstraction if you want to enable multiple views of the same content (like a pdf version or a colorblind version or a vision impaired version) without having to change/control the content.
Like most things in this space, different tradeoffs make one better than the other in different scenarios. Taking a hard stance of "one true way" is probably missing some imagination or experience.
Accessibility certainly requires a content-first approach, I agree with you there. If you view each part of an application solely in terms of what it looks like to a sighted user, it's easy to miss the subtleties of what the underlying structure ought to be.
But when you start layering on the presentation, you're still generally binding that presentation layer tightly to the current content. If you, for example, were to restructure the links in the Zen Garden footer for some reason, most of the styles would break because they're bound to the current structure of the content. The separation you talk about only exists in one direction.
By comparison, when I talk about separation and decoupling in terms of code, I mean that there is a single, explicit, and tight API that acts as a clear boundary between two units. By explicit, I mean that I've designed the units specifically so that they expose this API - this is almost exactly the opposite of what I should be doing with content and presentation, as you point out! By tight, I mean that the API is as minimal as I can make it - two units interacting via an API need to understand nothing of each other except that API, and that API is as small as possible.
None of that is happening when it comes to the interaction between content and presentation. The content is not explicit - I'm actively trying to write the content for the design, which precludes making it an explicit API surface. Nor is the content tight - again, I want to build the content without worrying about how I will layer the design on top, and I don't want to limit myself to just a small surface area here.
So to me, it makes sense to see the content and presentation as being coupled together, even if that coupling ideally goes in one direction only. And if two systems are coupled together, it makes sense to do that explicitly by co-locating those systems. Therefore, I tend to prefer systems like Tailwind that let me apply the presentation layer directly in the content layer. (In practice, I mostly prefer other tools that still let me write real CSS syntax, but Tailwind is pretty damn convenient a lot of the time.)
As an aside, talking about accessibility, I'd forgotten how inaccessible some of the Zen Garden designs are with their addition of extra content in the presentation layer alone.
Except HTML is already a presentational markup language. People lose track of this.
Consider: MathML has a presentational schema and a content schema. The whole point of presentational MathML is the intermingling of concerns. If you want interoperable data, you use content MathML.
Interoperability is a noble goal, but if you want HTML to do everything you're already barking up the wrong tree.
I have no inside information, but I always assume the tickboxes that "disable ____ data" from Google/Facebook/OpenAI just disconnects it from your own account, not hides it from the provider.
There's no independent verification of what that checkbox actually does. The company can say anything, and you are unable to verify that they actually do it.
The only verification you could do so far is GDPR-style data export, and also the adherence to GDPR regulations (and even those might get skirted if they aren't operating in europe).
Aren’t they usually phrased very specifically as “we collect this data and use it to show you relevant ads, you can opt out of us showing you relevant ads”?
