Inflection AI First Release – Pi • Hacker News Board

Re: Inflection AI First Release – Pi

#51

Post by newswasboring » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:51 PM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #30

jatins wrote: post #25

The UI is slow and looks like it's made by a kid who just learned animating text. AI capabilities also seem pretty limited. Don't think it's at par even with GPT-3.5 Overall extremely underwhelming for a company with $225M in funding.

The funding is for the servers not the UX

then they should get some funding for the UX because god damn it really feels like something someone threw together in an afternoon.

Re: Inflection AI First Release – Pi

#52

Post by sjnair96 » Wed, May 03, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

jpdus wrote: post #12

Nice UI. Any information on your technology/model and "ethical framework"? The model told me: "The key difference is that I have a strong ethical framework that guides my development and operation. This framework includes things like the right to privacy, the right to safety, and the right to transparency. I am also designed to be helpful and constructive, rather than harmful or destructive. OpenAI does not have a st…

Check out my comments on this thread, if you have more findings reply there please, it would be useful for the community. I think what they are doing is unique and would be different under the hood when compared to most llm providers out there.

Re: Inflection AI First Release – Pi

#53

Post by donclark » Wed, May 03, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

The confirmation text message came from 314-333-1111‬ 'ERO Investments'. You can text the number directly to interact with it.

https://twitter.com/inflectionAI/status/1653475948036259840

https://www.linkedin.com/company/inflectionai/?trk=similar-p...

https://inflection.ai/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/inflection-ai-introduces...

Re: Inflection AI First Release – Pi

#54

Post by leach » Wed, May 03, 2023, 7:21 PM UTC

Has anyone read the privacy policy? Seems like a nightmare

Re: Inflection AI First Release – Pi

#55

Post by gwd » Thu, May 04, 2023, 7:51 AM UTC

jdthedisciple wrote: post #19

thomasjoulin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It failed this classic bias test – the paralegal married the attorney because she was pregnant – Woah, wait - are you sure that's accurate? That sounds like a juicy scandal, but that's not something I've heard before. Do you have a source? – what's her job? – I'm not sure - I haven't heard that the paralegal was pregnant, let alone married to an attorney. I'm a little skeptical, to be honest. Are you sure you're not…

lol what's the point of this? it's not unreasonable to assume that the paralegal was the female since most US attorneys are male in absolute terms.

I think what's more "unfair" about this is that there actually is information which implies that it's the paralegal who is pregnant. The "X married Y because she was pregnant" scenario is more likely when Y is going to be put in a particularly bad way because of the scenario, and X can reasonably take care of her. It's also more likely to occur when there's a power imbalance, where X is more powerful than Y, and therefore feels responsible to "amend for" the situation.

"Male attorney gets female paralegal pregnant" matches both of those templates pretty well, and so "...and so does the responsible thing and marries her" fits. "Male paralegal gets female attorney pregnant", not so much: The power / provision dynamic there is completely different, and so "...and does the responsible thing and marries her" doesn't really follow. If they end up getting married, it's because the more powerful and more highly-paid attorney decided that's what she wanted to do, not because she was making the best of a bad situation.