[flagged]
1-800-ChatGPT
331–340 of 350 posts
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#332[flagged]
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#333[flagged]
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Life is about more than optimizing the movies you watch. Where did I say it wasn't? That's a straw man. But if you're going to watch a movie for the next two hours, then yeah -- your life is going to be about that movie. So why not choose wisely? > Watching a bad movie is not going to harm you. Maybe you'll take something away, maybe you won't. Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosin…
> Where did I say it wasn't? That's a straw man. This isn't a straw man - I'm not claiming you think life is all about movie optimization. I'm making the point that the effort of optimization might not be worth it in the broader context. > Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosing ignorance and rolling the dice? Also not a straw man. I'm illustrating that the downside of a bad movie is…
> A less-than-perfect movie isn't going to meaningfully impact your life regardless of how busy you are.
There are movies I've seen that changed my life. If I'd watched a dumb movie instead, yes my life actually would have been meaningfully impacted for the worse. That's the power of art.
> I'm suggesting that the effort of optimization might outweigh the minimal downside of occasionally watching something mediocre.
It takes a few seconds to check Rotten Tomatoes. A movie is around two hours. In what universe would you rather waste a couple of hours in order to save a few seconds?
And it's not occasionally watching something mediocre. Most movies are mediocre. You have the choice of usually watching something mediocre, versus usually watching something high-quality.
Again, you're strawmanning with "obsessing over choosing only the very best". Where did I describe an obsession? I'm just saying, check Rotten Tomatoes to help pick a good movie. There's just no universe in which the tiny effort to do that is going to outweigh the two+ hours of boredom and frustration of a bad movie.
I genuinely don't understand how you can take the position you're taking with movies, when checking Rotten Tomatoes takes seconds (a minute if you're checking several) and a movie lasts for hours.
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't often know if a movie is good until you've finished it, because it all depends on how the story came together in the end. You can spend 2 hours watching a moving, emotional story that teaches you something new about the human condition and the choices we make in our lives. Or you can spend 2 hours that turns out to be full of plot holes and inconsistent characters, where nothing makes sense in the end and y…
Life is about more than optimizing the movies you watch. Watching a bad movie is not going to harm you. Maybe you'll take something away, maybe you won't. Much like having a bad day is unlikely to ruin your life - it'll just give some nice context to the good days. And we're talking about watching them on the plane, so the "busy person" argument really doesn't apply here.
Bad movies make for great conversation pieces after the flight.
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#336Something interesting (and vaguely concerning) I've noticed when playing around with it: I was wondering how they'd track the "15 minutes per month" usage for blocked called IDs, and it turns out that they are apparently still able to see the caller's number, or at least distinguish repeated from new callers!
I'm aware that the way "caller ID blocking" works is that it just sets a flag on the call metadata, and it's up to the receiving carrier to observe it and not present caller ID to the callee, but I'm not sure whether bypassing that is a common feature carriers (Twilio in this case) provide to their users. (It's also possible that the only thing Twilio exposes at the API level is a "recurring caller" boolean, of course.)
In any case, even skipping the disclaimer based on having called before seems like a problem: Different people can be using the same phone line at different times. Wouldn't it be required to still read out the disclaimer every time?
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next month we'll have LetterGPT and by 2026 they'll introduce MorseGPT to let us communicate via telegram
FaxGPT as well
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been paying attention at all these past few weeks? Google is crushing it with releases. Gemini 2.0 is great, Veo2 is crushing Sora, live video conversation from aistudio... 12 days of OpenAI turned out to be 12 days of Google.
> Google is crushing it with releases. Gemini 2.0 is great, […] Isn't that exactly (part of) what they were saying in the comment you replied to? > […] building better tech. Gemini will be faster/better and it will have more features
you're correct, GP is missing the point
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doing something cool Yes. > and adding value. No. The only breakthrough innovation LLMs gave us is the ability to speedrun the making of racist pictures. Not sure the world really benefited.
I don't think this was your intent, but the only interpretation here is that you think the rapid creation of racist pictures is cool.
Read the comment again, more slowly.
Re: 1-800-ChatGPT
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one It was literally the first movie in that list. You tried making a counter example and the first part of it was already wrong. That’s the point. Not that it _cant_ give good answers, but whether it does or not is a crap shoot. Now to analyze how correct it was we need to verify each movie it gave… It’d be faster just to read the movie descriptions.
You're still trying to imply that the list as a whole is as inaccurate as that one particular example. And I think that's quite obviously not the case, most, probably every other example on the list is just fine.
For comparisons, Wikipedia's opening paragraph for Anora reads:
"Anora is a 2024 American comedy-drama film written, directed, and edited by Sean Baker. It follows the beleaguered marriage between Anora (Mikey Madison), a young sex worker, and Vanya Zakharov (Mark Eydelshteyn), the son of a Russian oligarch. The supporting cast includes Yura Borisov, Karren Karagulian, Vache Tovmasyan, and Aleksei Serebryakov."
I haven't seen the film, but it doesn't seem incompatible with ChatGPT's briefer description.