631–640 of 755 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably an extremely large number of companies can be counted on something as ginormous as the average human middle finger; I could probably fit 20 if I write really tiny and could fit a lot more with access to other devices.
Someday, cosmetic geneticists will offer to sell you extra middle fingers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do those distinct lifestyles" match with rising inequality and people having a hard time buying a house or paying rent?
Inequality is a red herring. Poverty is down. Have you looked for housing in Columbus, Ohio?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everywhere?? That’s exactly the hype talk that’s going to burst this bubble. Here’s tech’s dirty little secret. Despite all the screams about automation and universal basic income… the exact numbers where job replacement would show are in the labor productivity numbers. If GDP stays flat or grows while the number of jobs is reduced… bingo… you’d see that number climb. Productivity has actually stayed flat or gone dow…
> GDP stays flat or grows while the number of jobs is reduced I lack the economics knowledge to do more than parrot the response I've heard to this, so take this with the appropriate level of "hmmm": As I understand it, the counter-claim is that the measure of GDP mostly excludes exactly the set of things that grows absurdly fast. For example, the measure of inflation may include the cost of a smartphone in the stand…
The UK basket of goods is here https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/arti... and the various sublinks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (some of us at least) have been calling simple logic in computer games AI. And an artificial plant means some plastic shaped like a plant, it can't do photosynthesis, it can't grow, it can't reproduce. Meanwhile current AIs can code, explain a joke, etc. After all an artifice: (the use of) a clever trick or something intended to deceive
they can't "code", they can't "explain a joke", they can output cached human data in such a way that it seems like they're generating these things themselves.
Definitely. The tech is impressive but anyone I've spoken to thinks of it as Cleverbot 2.0, and among the more technically minded I've found that people mostly are indifferent. Hell, IRL most people I know don't think much of it, though on HN and elsewhere online I see a lot of people praising it as the next coming of Christ (this thread included) which puts it in a similar tier as crypto and other Web3 hypetrains as…
Yeah, the people who know the most about AI are also the people who are least impressed with its capabilities. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Wikipedia on Hinton:
>Hinton received the 2018 Turing Award (often referred to as the "Nobel Prize of Computing"), together with Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, for their work on deep learning. They are sometimes referred to as the "Godfathers of AI" and "Godfathers of Deep Learning"
Is there anyone at the Turing Award for AI level who's not impressed I wonder?
Definitely. The tech is impressive but anyone I've spoken to thinks of it as Cleverbot 2.0, and among the more technically minded I've found that people mostly are indifferent. Hell, IRL most people I know don't think much of it, though on HN and elsewhere online I see a lot of people praising it as the next coming of Christ (this thread included) which puts it in a similar tier as crypto and other Web3 hypetrains as…
I teach college, and in the beginning days, everyone was screaming about "the students will have chatGPT write papers now". Well, apart from the fact that chatGPT is really incapable of developing a thought, and also apart from the fact that half will fail to delete sentences like "I'm a language model, so I can't..." (insert gist of question here), it's painfully obvious if something is LLM generated. The moment a s…
I just asked Chat GPT 4 to explain the religious significance of the Wizard of Oz as a literary critic. Here's some of what it gave me, it doesn't write anything like you claim it does:
"Moreover, Dorothy's companions -- the Scarecrow seeking a brain (wisdom), the Tin Man seeking a heart (love/compassion), and the Lion seeking courage (strength) -- symbolize spiritual virtues that are often extolled in religious texts. They embark on this quest together, mirroring the communal aspect of many religions.
The slippers (silver in the book, ruby in the film) can be viewed as sacred objects, or relics, that assist her in her journey, providing divine protection and eventually leading her to salvation (returning home).
Finally, the revelation that the Wizard is a mere mortal, and that Dorothy had the power to return home all along, imparts a spiritual lesson often found in religious narratives: the divine or the sacred is not external, but within us."
If I was a student I could have easily expanded on these concepts (with or without GPT) and turned in a good essay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In humans “hallucination” means observing false inputs. How do you know that? You can only observe the output of the humans (other than yourself).
A person can hallucinate under the effects of drugs or mental disorder and then tell you about it after they've recovered from it. This experience is available to you and is well documented.
How do you know that the LLM is not observing false inputs but creating false outputs? Would an LLM which tells you very convincingly about how it obtained a false information make you change your mind?
> This experience is available to you and is well documented.
You are misunderstanding what I'm asking. Sure, drug induced hallucinations in humans is very well documented. What I'm asking if this purported difference between "hallucinating on the inputs" vs "creating false outputs" is meaningful distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see a lot of people praising it as the next coming of Christ (this thread included) which puts it in a similar tier as crypto and other Web3 hypetrains as far as I'm concerned. Fair. I'm definitely big on where it will be in the future (Iain M. Banks quote about Minds being the next thing to gods and on the other side), but there are a lot of grifters who are easy to spot with the following thought experiment: If…
You could argue that for any service provider then. Why is Intel selling CPUs when it could be making profit from the cloud data centers themselves?
The grifters say things like "buy my guide to learn how to use ChatGPT to write a book for you", overselling the capabilities of ChatGPT by a large margin.
Anytime someone says "buy my guide to becoming rich", that should set off warning signs. I've only heard it being true once ever, but even that might just be a case of a random dice roll we wouldn't have heard about if it had lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual
That said, one obvious difference between OpenAI and Intel is that OpenAI has full control of both the model and all the hardware the model is running on.