221–230 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather my SO just tell me they forgot. Then we could have an honest conversation about why. That, I believe, is what you should do in a marriage.
>Then we could have an honest conversation about why. It doesn't even need to be a conversation. Humans forget things. "Oh damn, I forgot! Let's grab dinner tonight!" or w/e, that's all people need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the write up seems to bring the indirect point that AI has limited use cases currently. So instead of taking the traditional Apple approach with showcasing the technical aspects of the product (an example being Apple has highlighted photography and video a lot in the last few generations of iPhone), instead Apple falls back on cheeky ads, which to be fair, are also not new to Apple marketing. I do think that…
> I'm, personally not a fan of the current generation or implementation of AI and do not want to use it. Why not? It gives vastly better than human performance across a wide range of problems. Just this morning I asked Chat GPT to find me the smallest set of positive integers whose median is 2 and whose average is 3.75, and it just spit out the correct answer instantly. That would have been an enormous pain in the as…
What did it spit out? Because there is more than one solution (or none, if unhelpfully pedantic).
It's certainly possible with practice to quickly mentally figure out that 3.75 * 4 is the least whole multiple, so n = 4. Quick and dirty 2,2 makes a possible median and so 1, 2, 2, 10 and 2,2,2,9 are clearly solutions, since x+y= 15-4 where 02 is not hard to do mentally. I struggle to call this a hard or enormous mental calculation. (Not missing the other solution, just acknowledging it takes an extra step - apparently it is hard for ChatGPT!)
4o actually struggled with keeping a median straight: https://chatgpt.com/share/67225a67-48ec-800f-a581-9651e7f65d...
And o1-preview had a very difficult time coming up with all solutions. https://chatgpt.com/share/67225ead-c9bc-800f-bcc1-067aacbf2b...
I'm not terribly impressed by that last one especially for nearly 2 minutes of "thinking". I also don't love that it keeps saying, set, set... A helpful tutor should at least gently point out these are not strictly sets. There's no solution of a set of positive integers that solves that problem.
If your GPT didn't give those 3 solutions right off the bat (I could not get mine to) and clarify they are not formally sets, it is a type of failure. Sure you can argue that a better prompt would improve it, but this is a problem, non experts putting in ill-formed or flawed prompts and not getting useful feedback where an expert human would be more helpful. A good human will tell you it's a multiset and in general there isn't a unique solution so the problem could be phrased better.
I asked o1-preview to make the question more rigorous and it came up with "Find all sets...".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, ultimately, I'd like to continue to think and solve on my own. If I want to leverage a chat model, which I do, I can do that very easily on my own hardware. I don't want it so far shoved down my phones innards that I'm paying for hardware that is useless outside that use case. Imagine the next 30 years when the majority of the population has no clue on how to function without cloud connected models answering…
>Imagine the next 30 years when the majority of the population has no clue on how to function without cloud connected models answering questions on the daily. The basis of this argument has probably existed for as long as humans have been able to self reflect. If technology can very reliably do something I need to do better than I can do, why would I spend energy doing it myself.
In reality, you're spending more energy. That being, yet, another problem with this use case [0].
Also, did it really "do it better"? Maybe it did it better than OP could, by their own admission. But they didn't learn anything in the process nor did they seem to consider the validity. Will it be right next time? How does one know? As indicated above - it doesn't appear to be a stretch that it could have just as easily given the wrong answer. [1]
"In an age of information, ignorance is a choice." — Donny Miller
[0] https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/projecting-the-electri... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41997498
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Imagine the next 30 years when the majority of the population has no clue on how to function without cloud connected models answering questions on the daily. The basis of this argument has probably existed for as long as humans have been able to self reflect. If technology can very reliably do something I need to do better than I can do, why would I spend energy doing it myself.
Related quote: "They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks." - Plato https://fs.blog/an-old-argument-against-writing/ Related blog: https://pessimistsarchive.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The boss is obviously supposed to be smart, he’s a black guy in a suit after all. Is this the first time he’s ever received something that was obviously from an AI. What’s he confused about? Ironically, you're doing the same thing as the actor in the skit - pretending to be confused, for effect. Obviously, the boss is used to receiving unprofessional responses from the employee in question. Obviously, the boss is t…
The idea that a shlub like this would only just now for the first time be using an LLM like this is what is unbelievable. And as a joke it is simply stale. I get it, Apple has to at least pretend to themselves like they are groundbreaking in these things that are now years old. It's cringe because Apple thinks this is a novel premise for humor.
It's unbelievable that someone would use a brand-new feature on their device for the first time?
I think this is mostly just a problem of not having good reasons to sell AI products to consumers in the first place. I recently saw some Ray Ban Meta glasses ads. One of them had a guy ask the glasses to describe what was in front of his face, and then he remarked “wow that’s accurate” (there are people skateboarding). The guy wasn’t blind. His use of the glasses made little sense. Another ad has a young man asking…
> mostly just a problem of not having good reasons I disagree, I think this is bad ethics, and bad marketing people, working for Apple...what other explanation - same people crushed musical instruments and books, human craft-work -- using a hydraulic press, in a recent Apple advert. Advertising certainly can show outrageous ways to behave, and it's "okay". Calling someone and simply shouting WAZZZAAAAAAP! into the ce…
But millions of people have been using Grammarly, et al. for this for years. Managers have actually paid to deploy tools like this to their employees. The ship you're talking about has already sailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that a shlub like this would only just now for the first time be using an LLM like this is what is unbelievable. And as a joke it is simply stale. I get it, Apple has to at least pretend to themselves like they are groundbreaking in these things that are now years old. It's cringe because Apple thinks this is a novel premise for humor.
> The idea that a shlub like this would only just now for the first time be using an LLM like this is what is unbelievable. It's unbelievable that someone would use a brand-new feature on their device for the first time?
He's a lazy fuck office stiff (yet still manages to warrant an iMac desktop), you're telling me he's just now starting to use an LLM to compose emails? Sure, whatever. If you think this ad is clever and funny you are entitled to that, you're not going to convince me it isn't idiotic and the joke is old. Unless the message was Apple AI: the new thing for oblivious dipshits or the recently recovered comatose.
Their ad agency should know better too: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/google-pulls-ai-ad-for-olymp...
Even the bastion of pretentious journalism Fast Company has this headline: "In Apple’s new ads for AI tools, we’re all total idiots"
> Ironically, you're doing the same thing as the actor in the skit - pretending to be confused, for effect.
If you're intuitive enough to conclude that an otherwise inarticulate douchebag probably used an LLM to compose an email, why would you "pretend" to be confused? Makes no sense. There's nothing remarkable about using an LLM to write an email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As with the Apple ads, I remain unconvinced these are benefits. Translation, yes, but your last two examples feel oddly isolating and dehumanizing. Like, estimating the number of people in a line is a trivial task, and something fun to discuss and argue about with your friends! If your friend had the glasses to, do you think it would have come up in conversation at all or would they just ask theirs? I dunno, I'm pict…
It enhanced my conversation as when both people do not know something you are looking at and or discussing you can now find the answer quickly via glasses on your face. We all use Google to find knowledge/answers but most are not pulling out our phones during conversations cause that's rude. Yet it's not rude to get the answer from your glasses you are wearing on your face and still present in the conversation your h…
I think this is mostly just a problem of not having good reasons to sell AI products to consumers in the first place. I recently saw some Ray Ban Meta glasses ads. One of them had a guy ask the glasses to describe what was in front of his face, and then he remarked “wow that’s accurate” (there are people skateboarding). The guy wasn’t blind. His use of the glasses made little sense. Another ad has a young man asking…
> mostly just a problem of not having good reasons I disagree, I think this is bad ethics, and bad marketing people, working for Apple...what other explanation - same people crushed musical instruments and books, human craft-work -- using a hydraulic press, in a recent Apple advert. Advertising certainly can show outrageous ways to behave, and it's "okay". Calling someone and simply shouting WAZZZAAAAAAP! into the ce…
Further, it’s pretty clear from the watching the commercial that the boss is not fooled by this. The humor of the commercial is supposed to derive from the absolute contrast between the well established and known behavior of the employee and the content of their email. Humor doesn’t always land for everyone to be sure but this sounds like the same sort of handwringing over tech replacing human effort we’ve seen for years. Calculators would let people bad at math sneak their way into jobs where you need math, IDEs will let people bad at coding sneak their way into places where you need to code. Now it’s “ai grammar editing” will allow people bad at writing professionally sneak into places where they need to edit professionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way! There are definitely legitimate use-cases for all of the features demoed in these ads, but Apple's marketing took a darker path. Email to boss: could've been someone who had a genuine struggle with language using it to finally get their boss to notice the effort they put into their work. Remembering a name: could've used it to get the name and left it at them being impressed rather than making it a lie. Summa…
The fact that lying is a core element of the ads is what makes them so gross to me. The guys says he's surprised she remembers him. She could just look straight at the camera, say what can I say, I'm very intelligent , wink, and it wouldn't be gross.
It's not the first Apple ad to be in poor taste this year.