81–90 of 135 posts
Recommends adding glue to Pizzas as well to stop the cheese sliding off : https://x.com/PixelButts/status/1793387357753999656
[1] https://www.404media.co/google-is-paying-reddit-60-million-f...
Every AI answer should starts with "I read it on the internet, that ...". or ends with "... so said the internet".
Or with even higher granularity, via citing.
If you ask it how many Muslim presidents the US has had, it will confidently tell you that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. I'm beginning to think that treating statistically common sequences of words on the whole internet as a source of truth may not actually be a very good idea. edit: screenshots for posterity https://x.com/TVietor08/status/1793768913245020502
But imagine if one day Google jumped the shark and did some training on some of its other properties only it could have access to in order to glean better information?
Remember when MS made ham-fisted fun of Google's free mail service because google scanned clear-text portions of mail messages supposedly for better ad-targeting?
I've noticed a distinct change in the results where now what I get back seems MUCH more related to "semantic similarity" with my search query I actually entered.
Great examples of this are when you search for a highly common topic, but specifically related to a highly niche sub-variant or focus area.
"Old" Google would have hooked into the edge-case as being a critical part of the query and zeroed in on that specificity (which you wanted), whereas now it will just go "these results were semantically similar to 95% of your search query, therefore they must be most relevant" - totally ignoring that the 5% it ignored was the critical differentiator.
Another way to trigger this behaviour really easily is to look for a contrarian view on something widely discussed by adding "not" or "doesn't" into the query. Google will just straight up ignore your input, returning a tonne of results that are 95% semantic matches for the words you used, but missing that ONE tiny point where you were searching for literally the opposite of what it returned.
Is Google losing significant web traffic to ChatGPT and others? I don't understand why else they'd test a product like this so widely.
My dad has been talking a lot about how he wants to start using ChatGPT more instead of Google, and he thinks is going to make his life much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should just delegate LLMs to note taking and move on with something actually useful that we can devote human hours to. Like space exploration.
Serious question - why is space exploration worth devoting the massive amount of man hours and natural resources to? What's the real gain that is worth using those resources for space exploration, or not using the resources at all?
There is only so many Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Nebulas, Planets and Comets to study and after you have studying a few million, they all look the same. Once you've seen one supermassive black hole bend light and time, you've seen them all.
You will grow out of it....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should just delegate LLMs to note taking and move on with something actually useful that we can devote human hours to. Like space exploration.
Serious question - why is space exploration worth devoting the massive amount of man hours and natural resources to? What's the real gain that is worth using those resources for space exploration, or not using the resources at all?
> why is game dev worth devoting the massive amount of man hours and natural resources to?
GPUs were arguably made for games and now they'd enabled all kinds of non-game things.
I don't remember all the things that space exploration has brought but a quick search brings up this from JPL
https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/infogr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should just delegate LLMs to note taking and move on with something actually useful that we can devote human hours to. Like space exploration.
Serious question - why is space exploration worth devoting the massive amount of man hours and natural resources to? What's the real gain that is worth using those resources for space exploration, or not using the resources at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh, not quite true. I just asked it, and it said... > The United States has not had any presidents who have publicly identified as Muslim. The vast majority of presidents have been Christian, with most belonging to Protestant denominations. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for holding office, so a Muslim (or person of any faith) can certainly become president in the future.
I'm curious what you think about the post that you replied to. Are you assuming that the author is lying? Have you weighed the likelihood of that against the likelihood that the author actually saw what they said, and that the reason you don't see the same might be because Google fixed it in the meantime, or that it only happens when phrased a different exact way, or because the responses may be indeterministic even…
