161–170 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI must be happy to get all that confidential information. ;)
I used their paid API and the open-webui frontend. They say that information sent through their API is not used for training, unlike the official free chatgpt interface. As a paid service however it's been insanely cheap compared to the time it's saved me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's trust VCs and bankers instead, they seem to be great keepers of civilization -- no calamities in sight with them at the helm /s
Possible > impossible. I'd first trust unicorns shooting rainbows out of their posteriors before the cryptocurrency vision; neither works for fostering civilization, but at least the unicorns aren't proposing an economy based on paying everyone for wasting energy.
The bitcoin economy, however, is a 1st generation system of distilling energy into value. It is the most honest form of value storage humanity has ever encountered and represents a product rarer than anything in the universe. Gold does not hold a candle to the scarcity of bitcoin, and yet bitcoin is more divisible and manageable.
These are neutral aligned systems. How we use them is up to us. Bitcoin, like an electric vehicle, does not care where the electrons come from. It will function either way.
Does your civilization use fossil fuels that poison the population and destroy the planet?
Bitcoin will run using that, and it will exponentially increase consumption.
Does your civilization use nuclear fission and fusion (which includes "renewables" since they are a direct fusion byproduct), that have manageable side effects for exponentially larger clean energy generation compared to anything else?
Bitcoin will run using that, and it will exponentially increase consumption.
Bitcoin is a neutral entity to distill energy into value. It cannot be tampered with like the federal reserve and a world cabal of bankers. You cannot negotiate with it, bail it out, or enrich your friends by sabotaging the ruleset for yourselves.
If your society has a selfish population, then it will be destroyed by the energy it requires to function. It is trivial to use energy sources exponentially more powerful without the destruction. The trouble with those sources is they do not have a "profit" motive, so countless elite will lose their golden spoons, and the synthetically generated "economy" will crash.
In exchange for the "economy" collapsing, the general populace can breathe again, the planet will stabilize, energy consumption can continue to grow exponentially without any harm, and a golden age for all beings will begin in this reality.
But my musings will have to stop here. I can say with certainty: you are someone who hasn't even remotely spent time thinking about and understanding this problem space on a deep level, so it is strange you would comment so confidently. It doesn't matter who you are, how much money you have, what innovations you've conceived and created, how respected you are, none of that matters. You're missing something very big here. If I was you, I would take the time to figure it out.
And truth is, I am not even replying to you. I write this out for the unspeaking and silenced people who are actually paying attention to validate their correct thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To bad that wouldn't work for good music albums. For many years (still, maybe?) albums would come out on Tuesdays. So one day of the week you'd have them all bunched up together. That's how I remember that September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday. Album day, and there was a good one that day, too.
You wouldn't have them bunched up if you were celebrating the anniversaries, unless all the music you were interested in was from the same year (or only years where 11 September was a Tuesday, say).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of sitting in my office doing my work, then, spending a few minutes to verify once they're done, I'd sit in the kitchen next to them checking it as they went, being both distracted AND probably spending more time. I'd much rather trust but verify.
There's a much closer example I think people here would naturally understand and even advocate for, without connecting it to the phrase: "Trust but verify" means letting a junior do the work you assigned them, then checking it afterwards in testing and code review. Not trusting would be doing it yourself instead of assigning it to them. Trusting but not verifying would be assigning them the work then pushing it live…
We used to trust people to just do what they think is best. But then we get bribery, harassment, lawsuits... we don't do that anymore.
In my opinion, not having trust is not a bad thing. It has a poor connotation so the result is that we modify the meaning of trust so we can say everyone trusts everything.
For example, one thing I trust is Nutrition Facts. I trust that what I'm eating actually contains what it says it contains. I don't verify it. Why? Because I know someone, somewhere is looking out for this. The FDA does not trust the food industry, so sometimes they audit.
There's many, very good, things I don't trust. I don't trust the blind spot indicator in my car. I turn my head every time. Does that mean the technology is bad? No, in my opinion, but I still don't trust it.
I had the exact same use case two weeks ago but I had received a pdf file from school and was sitting at a cafe with only my phone. I use ChatGPT, and while the article is correct to say that it will claim that it cannot generate .ics files directly in the code interpreter it is however very much capable of solving this particular problem. I did the following (all on my android phone): 1. Had it extract all the usefu…
Yeah, Claude.ai just gave me the text that I simply saved as a my.ics file. I wonder if I could reword the prompt to get chatgpt to do it.
I used:
"Extract the important dates and times from this pdf in Swedish"
[..]
"Great now generate the content of an ics formatted file, just the text, with the schedule above"
[..]
"Now use the code interpreter to create a file with the above content then save the file as an .ics extension"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "off by one" predilection of LLMs is going to lead to this massive erosion of trust in whatever "Truth" is supposed to be, and it's terrifying and going to make for a bumpy couple of years. (Or the complete collapse of objective knowledge, on a long enough time horizon.) It's one thing to ask an LLM when George Washington was born, and have it return "May 20, 2020." It's another thing to ask it, and have it matte…
This is semi-offtopic, but "trust but verify" is an oxymoron. Trusting something means I don't have to verify whether it's correct (I trust that it is), so the saying, in the end, is "don't verify but verify".
It's a Russian proverb BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust%2C_but_verify
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "off by one" predilection of LLMs is going to lead to this massive erosion of trust in whatever "Truth" is supposed to be, and it's terrifying and going to make for a bumpy couple of years. (Or the complete collapse of objective knowledge, on a long enough time horizon.) It's one thing to ask an LLM when George Washington was born, and have it return "May 20, 2020." It's another thing to ask it, and have it matte…
Off topic, but a funny thing about asking about George Washington's birthday is there are two possible answers because of British calendar reform in 1750 (although we've settled on recognizing the new-style date as his birthday). footnote [a] on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#cite_note-3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I call that problem "Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this!" If the risk exists with AI processing this kind of data, it exists with a human processing the data. The fail-safe processes in place for the human output need to be used for the AI output too, obviously - using the AI speeds up the initial process enormously though
The problem is liability. Who is liable if the AI makes errors?
Who is held liable if I use broken code from stack overflow, or don't investigate the accuracy of some solution I find, or otherwise misuse information? Pretty sure it's me.
I've been doing similar things with gpt 4o to simplify data entry. Right now, it's kind of useful to use but people are not systematically doing much yet with LLMs. I think that's going to change because it's so obviously useful to do. Any work involving entering data into some form is something that can and will be automated now. Especially if you have the information in some printed or printable way. Just point you…
In my tests, if you operate over diverse forms or documents the information extraction rate is around 90%. It's especially hard for complex forms.