441–450 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google really hasn't launched a decent in-house product since Gmail What about Chrome? And Chromebooks?
mmm, WebKit?
https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/display...
I did this at university. It was our first comp sci class ever, we were given raspberry pi's. We had no coding experience or guidance, and were asked to create "something". All we had to work with was information on how to communicate with the pi using putty. Oddly, this assignment didn't require us to submit code, but simply demonstrate it working. My group (3 of us) bought a moisture sensor to plug into the pi, and…
Is this cheating? It sounds like cheating and reflects quite poorly on you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Teams will likely still be around in 20 years. I doubt gsuite will exist in 5... or even 1.
GSuite has existed since 2006, so it's not like Google lacks focus on it.
This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…
Well, that is trully shocking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is paid MS Teams is more or less common than paid GSuite? It's hard to find stats on this. GSuite is the better product IMO, but MS has a stronger b2b reputation, and anecdotally I hear more about people using Teams.
Nobody pays for Teams, but everyone pays for Office, and if you get Teams for free with it ...
Sure, Teams is a steaming pile of crap to use day-to-day as a chat app, the search is slow and vague - and depending on policy, probably links you to messages that no longer exist in the archive lol. Oh you want to download message history? Nah gotta get an admin to do that bruh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did some reading and it seems that rubber's relative density to water has to do with its manufacturing process. I see a couple of different quotes on the specific gravity of so-called 'natural rubber', and most claim it's lower than water. Am I missing something? I asked both Bard (Gemini at this point I think?) and GPT-4 why ducks float, and they both seemed accurate: they talked about the density of the material…
Someone on Twitter was also skeptical that the material is more dense than water. I happened to have a rubber duck handy so I cut a sample of material and put it in water. It sinks to the bottom. Of course the ultimate skeptic would say one test doesn't prove that all rubber ducks are the same. I'm sure someone at some point in history has made a rubber duck out of material that is less dense than water. But I invite…
I guess for me the question of whether or not the model is lying or hallucinating is if it's correctly summarizing its source material. I find very conflicting materials on the density of rubber, and most of the sources that Google surfaces claim a lower density than water. So it makes sense to me that the model would make the inference.
I'm splitting hairs though, I largely agree with your comment above and above that.
To illustrate my agreement: I like testing AIs with this kind of thing... a few months ago I asked GPT for advice as to how to restart my gas powered water heater. It told me the first step was to make sure the gas was off, then to light the pilot light. I then asked it how the pilot light was supposed to stay lit with the gas off and it backpedaled. My imagining here is that because so many instructional materials about gas powered devices emphasize to start by turning off the gas, that weighted it as the first instruction.
Interesting, the above shows progress though. I realized I asked GPT 3.5 back then, I just re-asked 3.5 and then asked 4 for the first time. 3.5 was still wrong. 4 told me to initially turn off the gas to disappate it, then to ensure gas was flowing to the pilot before sparking it.
But that said I am quite familiar with the AI being confidently wrong, so your point is taken, I only really responded because I was wondering if I was misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the question of density.
This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…
I was at MS in 2008 September and internally they had a very beautiful and well functioning Office web already (named differently, forgot the name but it wasn't sharepoint if I recall correctly, I think it had to do something with expense reports?) that would put Google Docs to shame today. They just didn't want to cannibalize their own product.
2008 is late to the party for a docs competitor! Microsoft got the runaround by Google and after Google launched docs they could have clobbered Microsoft which kind of failed to respond properly in kind, but they didn’t push the platform hard enough to eat the corporate market share, and didn’t follow up with a share point alternative that would appeal to the enterprise, and kind of blew the opportunity imo.
I mean to this day Google docs is free but it still hasn’t unseated Word in the marketplace, but the real killer app that keeps office on top is Excel, which some companies built their entire tooling around.
It’s crazy interesting to look back and realize how many twists there were leading us to where we are today.
Btw it was Office Server or Sharepoint Portal earlier (this is like Frontpage days so like 2001?) and Microsoft called it Tahoe internally. I don’t think it became Sharepoint until Office 365 launched.
The XMLHTTP object launched in 2001 and was part of the dhtml wave. That gave a LOT of the capabilities to browsers that we currently see as browser-based word processing, but there were efforts with proprietary extensions going back from there they just didn’t get broad support or become standards. I saw some crazy stuff at SGI in the late 90s when I was working on their visual workstation series launch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to be a common view among some folks. Personally, I'm impartial. Search or even asking other expert human beings are prone to provide incorrect results. I'm unsure where this expectation of 100% absolute correctness comes from. I'm sure there are use cases, but I assume it's the vast minority and most can tolerate larger than expected inaccuracies.
If it’s no better than asking a random person, then where is the hype? I already know lots of people who can give me free, maybe incorrect guesses to my questions. At least we won’t have to worry about it obtaining god-like powers over our society…
We all know someone who's better at self promotion than at whatever they're supposed to be doing. Those people often get far more power than they should have, or can handle—and ChatGPT is those people distilled.
That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…
This seems to be a common view among some folks. Personally, I'm impartial. Search or even asking other expert human beings are prone to provide incorrect results. I'm unsure where this expectation of 100% absolute correctness comes from. I'm sure there are use cases, but I assume it's the vast minority and most can tolerate larger than expected inaccuracies.
LLMs do none of this. They pose as a confident expert on almost everything, and are just as likely to spit out BS as a true answer. They don't cite their sources, and if you ask for the source sometimes they provide ones that don't contain the information cited or don't even exist. If you hired a researcher and they did that you wouldn't hire them again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. I could type your whole comment without any typos completely blindly (except maybe "QWERTY" because uppercaps don't get autocorrected).
Apple autocorrect has a tendency to replace technical terms with similar words, eg. rvm turns into rum or ram or something. It's even worse on the watch somehow. I take care to hit every key exactly, the correct word is there, I hit space, boom replaced with a completely different word. On the watch it seems to replace almost every word with bullshit, not just technical terms.