711–720 of 755 posts
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.
> 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…
> …genome costs… Source: This week’s Kurzgesagt, right?
FWIW I have the exact opposite experience: people around me, who are _NOT_ in tech, keep talking about AI and lately especially ChatGPT, whereas serious (not only senior) IT professionals don't really. Besides the science behind it, currently it feels like the same hype as crypto a couple years before.
> serious (not only senior) IT professionals don't really. Which part of the industry are you working in? I work for Google and hear a lot of talk about LLMs from my serious colleagues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> serious (not only senior) IT professionals don't really. Which part of the industry are you working in? I work for Google and hear a lot of talk about LLMs from my serious colleagues.
High Frequency Trading, and my circle is mostly platform engineering people, cloud engineers, automatization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your nation's currency is so mismanaged that Btc looks like an appealing alternative that says more about your nation's monetary policy than it says about Btc.
There are plenty of developing countries where people don't trust the government currency and use alternatives. It's quite common in Africa where many transactions were done in USD.
Same for developed countries, though on a small scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It might be that you do not know what you do not know. Yes, you’ll notice some stupid cheaters, but you might not catch everything. I can see why you believe identifying GPT-generated text is easy. This is because techniques like prompt engineering, few-shot learning, and fine-tuning aren't known and used extensively yet. For instance, with a 32k model, you could input all your previous writings and the instruct gpt…
They aren't going to risk getting expelled. Schools have done a good job of putting the fear of God into kids to not use chatGPT. Better to just not turn a paper in than to be accused of plagiarism.
All chatGPT shows to me is we have a ton of smart, incredibly closed minded people that know what they know and they think they have it all figured out.
My paper would be easy to spot if chatGPT helped because the writing would be so much better. The thoughts would be much better organized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfect example of an AI-hype comment. You’re treating it as a fact that LLM are going to replace existing products, at some unknown future date. “In 5 years, all code will be written by AI” “In 5 years, LLM will replace Siri and Alexa” “In 5 years, AI will replace [sector of jobs]” The thing that frustrates me about these statements is that you don’t know what AI technology is going to look like in 5 years…
What would you prefer to talk about? We don’t have to make predictions and discuss their potential, or at least you don’t have to join those discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm writing a response to you right now, and I "know" a certain amount of information about the world. How do you know? And more importantly, how do you prove it to others? The only way to prove it is to say: "OK, you are human, I am human, each of us know this is true for ourselves, let's be nice and assume it's true for each other as well". > But that doesn't really work for LLMs, because there's no knowledge at…
You can figure out if someone knows what they’re talking about or not by asking them questions about a subject. A bullshitter will come up with plausible answers; an honest person will say they don’t know. ChatGPT isn’t even a bullshitter when it hallucinates – it simply does not know when to stop. It has no conceptual model that guides its output. It parrots words but does not know things.
The discussion is whether LLMs have "knowledge, understanding, and reasoning ability" like humans do.
Your reply suggests that a bullshitter has the same cognitive abilities as an LLM, which seems to validate that LLMs are on-par with some humans. The claim that "it simply does not know when to stop" is wrong (it does stop, of course, it has a token limit -- human bullshitters don't). The claim that "It has no conceptual model that guides its output." is just an assertion. "It parrots words but does not know things." is just begging the question.
Lots of assertions without back up. Thanks for your opinion, I guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could apply the same logic to humans. Whenever a human speaks, it's just vibrations of wave molecules, triggered by the mouth and throat, which in turn are controlled by electric signals in the human's neural network. Those neurons, they just make muscles move. They don't have any concept of true of false. At least nobody has found a "true of false" neuron in the brain.
all of it coheres to consciousness, we know what it's like to be a human, but I think it'd be hubris to think we've cracked the code and made a blueprint of anything other than a word calculator
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, neither the rate of homelessness has gone up nor homeownership has gone down over the past decade.
The first one wouldn't cover rents increasing but people paying them, albeit struggling. The second one is a lagging indicator. If lots of people bought their homes when they were cheap and are still alive, it will take time for the real impact to be visible.
Edit: Tracking real numbers in homelessness is also just extremely difficult.