201–210 of 392 posts
> people are unimpressed that we can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AI that can generate any image/video > super smart were there any US presidents named Bob? No U.S. president has ever gone by “Bob” as a first name or nickname. A few presidents had “Robert” in their full name, but none were commonly known as Bob: James Abram Garfield — middle name Abram, not Robert James Earl Carter Jr. (Jimmy Carter)…
> people are unimpressed that we can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AI that can generate any image/video > super smart were there any US presidents named Bob? No U.S. president has ever gone by “Bob” as a first name or nickname. A few presidents had “Robert” in their full name, but none were commonly known as Bob: James Abram Garfield — middle name Abram, not Robert James Earl Carter Jr. (Jimmy Carter)…
"No. There has never been a U.S. President whose first name was “Bob.” A few presidents had names that could be shortened to Bob—most commonly Robert—but no U.S. President has had the first name Robert, either. (There have been presidents with middle name Robert, such as James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr., but that’s different.) So: no Presidents named Bob, and none named Robert as their first name.
> Jimmy?
(generic summary of who Jimmy Carter is)
> So he also isn't a Robert.
Correct — there have been no U.S. Presidents with the first name Robert.
A few had middle name Robert (e.g., James Robert “Jimmy” Carter does not have Robert as a middle name, for clarity — his middle name is Earl), but no president’s given first name has been Robert.
So your original statement stands: No “Bob” No “Robert”
Want a list of presidents by first name to double-check?"
My favorite part is it desperately inserting a Robert into Jimmy Carter's name to appease the context. I wonder if a diffusion based LLM would avoid that kind of failure.
> The fact that people are unimpressed that we can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AI that can generate any image/video is mindblowing to me. It's not that people are unimpressed with AI - they're just tired of constantly being bombarded with it, and it sneaking its way into where it's not wanted. "Generate any image you want!" "Analyse this thing with AI!" gets pretty tiring. If I want AI I'll actively…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be impressed if AI was actually 'super smart' but what we have now is not.
But Sam promised us the gpt5 was a PhD level intelligence! Now excuse me while I go talk to my PhD wielding friend about whether the seahorse emoji exists. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that people are unimpressed that we can have a fluid gameplay experience of the latest entry in the Diablo franchise in the palm of our hands was mindblowing to someone as well. "Don't you people have phones?"
Well, Blizzard is Microsoft now so I guess they belong together. Ironically though, Diablo Immortal was a huge commercial success despite the tone deaf announcement. I don't think MS will experience the same though. They're quickly going to be left with the only people using windows are those who are forced by their employer, no one will willingly choose it over other options.
Similar to how Microsoft has decided there's no money to be made in console hardware and is trying to spin their Xbox brand into a software service brand they can slap on other things, I think they've decided that making a consumer OS has no money in it, and all the minmaxing of squeezing at the moment is them trying to extract the last drips of money while trying to drive people elsewhere.
I could be wrong, I'm not a journalist with sources at the company or something, but looking at it from the outside, this seems like the moves you'd make to drive people off your platform over time so you can kill it while having plausible deniability that you're not trying to do that, you definitely genuinely believe everyone wants you to opt them into everything every time you push an update.
In particular, I don't think having the kinds of enormous tire fires on update releases over this long without radical reinvestment in avoiding that happening in the future is what you do if you're trying to build something you're still dealing with another 10-20 years from now.
But why integrate AI so deeply into Windows instead of 1. keeping Windows as small and lean as possible, and let it do the things an operating system is for, 2. offering some AI applications that can be installed optionally by the users who want them, i.e. turn their AI applications into external software that can be installed/used or not, like Microsoft Office.
But why integrate AI so deeply into Windows instead of 1. keeping Windows as small and lean as possible, and let it do the things an operating system is for, 2. offering some AI applications that can be installed optionally by the users who want them, i.e. turn their AI applications into external software that can be installed/used or not, like Microsoft Office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"we can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AIwe can have a fluent conversation with a super smart AI" But we can't. I can have something styled as a conversation with a token predictor that emits text that, if interpreted as a conversation, will gaslight you constantly, while at best sometimes being accidentally correct (but still requiring double-checking with an actual source). Yes, I am uninterested in…
LLMs are severely overhyped, have many problems, and I don't want them in my face anymore than the average person. But we're not in 2023 anymore. These kinds of comments just come off ignorant.
Given that this has now been going on for a few years, both are wearing thin.
Like, I’m sorry, but the current crop of bullshit generators are not good. They’re just not. I’m not even convinced they’re improving at this point; if anything the output has become more stylistically offputting, and they’re still just as open to spouting complete nonsense.
This Microsoft response reminds me of the 2018 Blizzcon event, where the Diablo Immortal developer challenged the audience with "Do you guys not have phones?" when the audience asked if the game was coming to PC. Then - like now - it seemed that they couldn't understand that what they made was not what their customers wanted.
My thought exactly. From hindsight, Diablo immortal is not a bad game, but that moment was really…not great. I guess the guy knew that phone games were getting momentum but unfortunately that specific group of users in Blizzcon didn’t want a phone game.