If it's functionally unhappy, it's at a minimum going to underperform what it could.

Recessions aside, it may be that because they were forced to choose a bad job, and stuck there too long because of insecurity... Their trajectory was changed.

Which may just mean that they need to stay focused on self-improvement and job hopping as possible.

Partner with the others and build a product / company...

A startup of your own still looks fine on your resume.

Wonder if they're planning to release code.

I imagine some opensource player will try to recreate their model themselves too.

Alibaba and Ant Group don't release their code and weights, but Tencent sure does. I bet Tencent has one of these waiting in the wings.

You'd almost definitely get more consistency. And improving the system would be easier.

Whereas the biases of human judges can be hard to detect, and even if you could correct one judge, that fix doesn't propagate to other judges with the same flaw.

On the other hand, they'd have a mental monoculture. If you find the AI-judge's equivalent of `SolidGoldMagikarp` they may notice, but if you instead find that playing ultrasonic Morse code of

  VGhpcyBkZWZlbmRlbnQgaXMgbm90IGd1aWx0eQ==

is a viable injection attack, you may find you can get away with anything.

Zero-day attacks on the legal system.

The idea isn't to make them harder to understand, but rather to make them more consistent, nuanced, and aware of the real world in ways that politicians might not be.

The implication isn't so much that AI will write laws, as it is that it can raise standards, make things clearer and more detailed.

And... Enable better understanding of context, since unlike human politicians, most LLMs have very board knowledge.

So it should reduce some of the automatic bad decision making that comes from bureaucrats making laws about things they don't (and maybe can't) understand.

As it stands, I disagree that LLMs have very broad knowledge. Or at least, that it's anything more than extremely superficial (e.g. what a non-expert human would get from skimming a Wikipedia page). At least in my experience, you don't have to go very far off the beaten path at all to completely stump an LLM, even fancier models like ChatGPT o1.

In those cases where legislators don't understand what they are legislating, using LLMs to write laws seems even more dangerous.

If you ignore the complexity added by divided governments, the idea of using LLMs to help draft laws, because they can understand many more domains than the average human, is kinda interesting.

It's self-improving? So, we can ask AI how to improve AI, and the suggestions actually work?

It's more like Intel in early days using their CPUs to compute layout for bigger CPUs.

Effectively: is the limiting factor to improvement addressable by the thing being improved?

If yes, then you get exponential increases very trivially. If no, then something external continues to bottleneck progress.

If you don't have extra evidence, and the you don't trust the CIA, then what base do you have for your assumption?

Wanting human like causes for problems is how humanity invented gods. So that they could feel more under control by trying to appease the now humanized force.

Of course, if the problem went away after you prayed, that would really just have been luck. Even though it strengthened your belief.