@IsaacKing314 The version I had in mind was geared to thinking about ML prediction models, it was a version of this graph:
Where the user can move a few things:
- model accuracy (separates the distributions)
- prevalence
- classification threshold
And on the side it‘d show ROC and PR curves
Revamp healthcare with our Implementing Health Care AI into Clinical Practice program !
Gain skills to integrate AI seamlessly and enhance patient care. Perfect for clinicians and leaders ready to innovate.
Learn more: https://t.co/3bufTM3IyL
#HealthcareInnovation#AI
Revamp healthcare with our Implementing Health Care AI into Clinical Practice program !
Gain skills to integrate AI seamlessly and enhance patient care. Perfect for clinicians and leaders ready to innovate.
Learn more: https://t.co/3bufTM3IyL
#HealthcareInnovation#AI
Agree with this. LLMs+prompting are generally so much better than what most users can train from scratch. For most of our projects at @MayoClinicENT that require NLP, we’re mostly planning to use LLM APIs, or fine-tune open-source LLMs.
I think this is mostly right.
- LLMs created a whole new layer of abstraction and profession.
- I've so far called this role "Prompt Engineer" but agree it is misleading. It's not just prompting alone, there's a lot of glue code/infra around it. Maybe "AI Engineer" is ~usable, though it takes something a bit too specific and makes it a bit too broad.
- ML people train algorithms/networks, usually from scratch, usually at lower capability.
- LLM training is becoming sufficently different from ML because of its systems-heavy workloads, and is also splitting off into a new kind of role, focused on very large scale training of transformers on supercomputers.
- In numbers, there's probably going to be significantly more AI Engineers than there are ML engineers / LLM engineers.
- One can be quite successful in this role without ever training anything.
- I don't fully follow the Software 1.0/2.0 framing. Software 3.0 (imo ~prompting LLMs) is amusing because prompts are human-designed "code", but in English, and interpreted by an LLM (itself now a Software 2.0 artifact). AI Engineers simultaneously program in all 3 paradigms. It's a bit 😵💫
summary of Yoshua Bengio article on AI safety:
He thinks instrumental convergence can potentially result in AIs exhibiting dangerous behaviors and that we can avoid this if we ban agents and only make question-answering 'STEM' AI's.
article:
https://t.co/xOq5ra7ZoD
@sullyj3@robertwiblin To be fair to my past self, I hadn’t given it much thought because most doom scenarios I had ran into were of the type “what if they become sentient and start wanting X?” Eliezer’s post made me realize that you don’t need that. It can all be a natural consequence of optimization.
@sullyj3@robertwiblin Very clearly. It was this:
https://t.co/GoSnNTbEbt
I hadn’t considered orthogonality, instrumental convergence, self-improvement as an instrumental goal, and how many ways there are to get power+control with just “intelligence”.
@kareem_carr I completely agree. I think there’s a big difference between teaching practitioners and teaching the future generations of methodologists/statisticians, and those are often confused.
@kareem_carr Alternative interpretation: performance is great for most datasets “in a lab setting”, but it’s easier to keep applying the lab approach to weirder “problems” than to deal with the problems of models for the real world.
@diegoagusan@Egocrata sí pero a través de que la cultura es distinta. Este tipo, con el mismo machete, presentando el mismo riesgo, en EEUU la poli le hubiera disparado “por si acaso”. Y nadie habría dicho que era uso excesivo de fuerza.
@jfalbertos Basado en tu propio artículo yo diría que no le va a salir muy bien: dedicas tres frases a “la agenda social”, y la mayoría del artículo se refiere a la cuestión nacional.