311–320 of 453 posts
Could a moderator change the "Teams" in the title to lowercase (as it is in the article)? Capitalizing Teams misleadingly implies it's regarding Microsoft's chat platform.
Said chat platform explicitly calls itself "Microsoft Teams". You know that it is not being referred to because there is no mention of its name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is possible). I endorse that summary without reservation. And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience. I'm troubled though,…
People aren’t passing you through a filter because you are brash and undiplomatic and “unaligned”, it’s because your communication style is borderline incomprehensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably correct but I'd prefer that family don't read the conversations I've had, as even if I'm not saying anything too private, it feels too intrusive (it'd be a bit like reading my inner thoughts).
It's interesting that you're so trusting of strangers knowing your inner thoughts (OpenAI) but not your family
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. We shouldn't assume a basic sentence capitalised word refers to a product. If a reference to a product is intended, we should clarify that association some other way; i.e. MS Teams.
In this case the original title is "ChatGPT for teams", so the headline was actually editorialized when it was submitted, which is discouraged by HN guidelines. Normally it would be ok to capitallize words to match what many other US publications use, but this capitalization introduces confusion. I can only speak for myself, but I made the assumption that this was an integration with MS Teams. This would have been av…
"ChatGPT for Microsoft Teams", marketed under the name Copilot, has been a Microsoft Teams feature for a while. What new thing did you expect when you read this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise of OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with the leaderboards. Sorry but you're talking complete nonsense here. The benchmark by LMSys (chatbot arena) cannot be gamed, and Ravenwolf is a random-ass poster with no scientific rigor to his benchmarks.
Cannot be gamed? C'mon now... You could pay a bunch of people to vote for your model in the arena.
Note that "no training on your data" is only for Team and Enterprise: https://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing
Note that "no training on your data" is only for Team and Enterprise: https://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing