Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal) profile picture

There is more than one way to see it™. https://teapawt.net/t.co/iffZLgIjwJ. Also, Knowledge Architect at Pinterest.

Joined January 2009
Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)Photo by Abhijit Mahabal (@amahabal)
Abhijit Mahabal retweeted
Replying to @BachFrancis
(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview. (2/7) My discomfort with the attention being paid to existential risk---and with the ongoing dominance of the public discussion of such risks by a few so-called thought leaders---is that there's an elephant in the room that is being missed. That elephant is the effect of all of this discussion on young people, and indeed the effect---beginning with social media a decade ago---of information technology on young lives broadly speaking. (3/7) I recently read an interview by Jill Lepore in which she reports on discussions that she had recently with a group of college students: "They had just three things to say. One, social media completely destroyed their childhoods. Two, AI is destroying their college education and their likely prospects for employment. And three, what the hell are we all doing?" To add a fourth bullet that I've heard in similar discussions: "I'm not going to have children, because the existential risk is just too high." (4/7) Please contemplate such a statement, those of you who think that it's OK that the public, widely diffused, discussion coming from seemingly authoritative figures is so adamant about existential risk. (5/7) Let me add that I have little interest in a debate about what "superintelligence" might mean, or whether we're currently seeing the emergence of superintelligence. For what it's worth, I would certainly agree that the solution of extremely challenging math problems (for example) exhibits a very impressive form of intelligence, although I would want to argue that such intelligence is impossible to dissociate from the collective of humans that provided data to the machine learning system (which itself has become a kind of collective). (6/7) Such philosophical debates are entertaining and even important, but when they then head in the direction of "when such superintelligence emerges, there's a good chance that it will want to kill all humans", I say "science fiction". Again, I don't think that it's bad to consider such thoughts, but I strongly believe that it's bad for society, and especially young people, for such thoughts, unaccompanied by any serious real-world analysis, to become a dominant form of discourse of the era. (7/7) We are damaging human lives, and the consequences of that damage will no doubt be a major theme of the next several decades.
49
234
61
1,201
152,254
Abhijit Mahabal retweeted
AI has the potential to wipe out the human race, but there are also downsides.
217
1,231
127
9,259
287,113
Abhijit Mahabal retweeted
Replying to @ns123abc
AI will cure cancer if you input the cure into the prompt window
21
241
8
6,515
125,154
The best take I have seen on whether AI can replace mathematicians.
AI cannot replace mathematicians, because the only reason to do math work is for making mathematicians happy. so either the mathematicians will do math with help of AI and be happy, or no one will do math at all.
1
3
156
Abhijit Mahabal retweeted
English: customer retention Urdu: Humko unse wafa ki hai ummeed Jo nahin jaante wafa kya hai
English: Delulu Urdu: Humko maloom hai jannat ki haqiqat lekin Dil ke khush rakhne ko ghalib ye khayal achha hai
5
5
4
46
11,254
What is mind-boggling here is that googling for one of the possibly fake citations that R2 highlighted gives an AI overview that makes it look like the paper existed, but with a circular reference back to the @iclr_conf paper citing it.. A glimpse of our afactual world to come..
1
7
55
4,817
Given today’s AI inundation, I just realized, an old pun (two meanings) has now become a double pun: On being asked “can you pun on the zodiac?” the punster replied “By Gemini, I can sir”.
48
Wonderful exploration of a math problem using several LLMs and why it ain’t slam dunk that they will accelerate research
Let me sum up the episode that took place in this thread, because I think it's instructive and microcosmic of at least one way that I expect LLM-"assisted" research to progress in the real world. Anecdotal and you know I'm predisposed as a hater but I think it's a good case study
75
As our reliance on ChatGPT grows, we need to know when it will be helpful and when it might hallucinate. Large language models are still new, and our understanding of their blind spots is limited, but philosophers and cognitive scientists have long studied human knowledge. 🧵
1
74
Drawing on a framework proposed by British philosopher A. C. Grayling, this post analyzes common LLM failure modes and offers practical tips for predicting whether an LLM will help or hinder in a given situation. amahabal.substack.com/p/anti…
51
I have a huge trade deficit with Amazon. It has been ripping me off. From now on, I am going to require Amazon to pay me money if they want to continue shipping stuff to me. No deal until I reach zero deficit!!!
1
1
1
93
I wonder if, on the average, folks who pay OpenAI $200 a month are more gullible. Perhaps a tad less likely to look carefully enough at the output? Some cognitive dissonance because of the sunk capital?
⚠️⚠️⚠️ model collapse warning & a caution for science ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Scary how AI influencers are claiming “hallucinations are over” and Deep Research is revolutionizing science when actual reports by people who looked carefully post reports like the one below. And @hoofball_69 100% nails the serious problem that fans like @DeryaTR_ tend to overlook: a lot of these errors are difficult to detect and will seep into the literature. GenAI will not be able to undo the mess. Model collapse for science is no laughing matter. But it is now imminent.
1
173
I wish we could enforce this on people as well.
3
90
Why is today's AI such a baffling mix of genius and stupidity? I explore one key aspect: open.substack.com/pub/amahab…
1
58
I am genuinely puzzled by the O3 Mini failing on the following problem. I expected it to nail this completely. What is going on? I merely asked it to factor a number smaller than 2 million that has two large prime factors. It returned incorrect factors.chatgpt.com/share/679d2bce-5…
1
1
3
757
Why is O3, which can supposedly solve some IMO-level problems, failing at this task? I know that I often post about failures, but this failure, I promise, was genuinely surprising for me.
1
116
ChatGPT cannot produce quality fiction. Some readers may view this post as a quixotic quest born of ignorance, while others may see it as a pointless defense of an obvious truism. I explore why LLMs today fail at this task: amahabal.substack.com/p/chat…
1
1
1
122
In a nutshell, this inability stems from the limitations of the word model that an LLM learns, along with the intense demands that fiction imposes.
96