• 1 Post
  • 36 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle





  • I used to work for a consultancy that tried to bill themselves as experts in VR/AR. This is back in 2017 or so. We helped a client make a 3D tracking system with VR/AR applications, and this client let us kind of run with it.

    Anyway, I was sort of head of this AR/VR thing, and we were always desperate for free advertising, so I somehow got pulled to provide my thoughts on the impact of VR/AR on the grocery store industry for an article in “The Grocer” or some other industry mag.

    Leading up to the call, I was trying to think of what I’d say. My thoughts were on building out virtual grocery stores to test customer reactions before building them for real. Bring in some test subjects, see how they plan their route, how they react to different placements of goods. Track their eye movements to see if the new end-cap design is working. Time how long they spend in the store, etc. Are the aisles too narrow and claustrophobic. I got the idea from another client who was using VR to test out new detergent bottle concepts (apparently a one-off of a blow-molded bleach bottle is crazy expensive).

    Well my consultancy had been purchased by a multinational conglomerate a year or so prior, so I got a phone call from some C-suite ass who wanted to brief me on what they wanted me to say to the magazine.

    His idea was a service where you could have a store employee wear some kind of camera rig so the customer could sit at home in VR and pilot the employee around the store. This would essentially replace curbside pickup, but with the added benefit of “allowing the customer to pick which apple they want out of the bunch.”

    I resolved to ignore that advice, but the whole magazine thing ended up falling through anyway. I quit within the year.














  • I think it’s critically important to be very specific about what LLMs are “able to do” vs what they tend to do in practice.

    The argument is that the initial training data is sufficiently altered and “transformed” so as not to be breaking copyright. If the model is capable of reproducing the majority of the book unaltered, then we know that is not the case. Whether or not it’s easy to access is irrelevant. The fact that the people performing the study had to “jailbreak” the models to get past checks tells you that the model’s creators are very aware that the model is very capable of producing an un-transformed version of the copyrighted work.

    From the end-user’s perspective, if the model is sufficiently gated from distributing copyrighted works, it doesn’t matter what it’s inherently capable of, but the argument shouldn’t be “the model isn’t breaking the law” it should be “we have a staff of people working around the clock to make sure the model doesn’t try to break the law.”