621–630 of 723 posts
Statistics with lipstick on to sex it up for the investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they aren't. Some jobs are being scaled down because of the increased productivity of other people with AI, but none of the jobs you listed are within reach of autonomous AI work with today's technology (as illustrated by the AirCanada hilarious case).
Doesn't the Air Canada case demonstrate the exact opposite, that real businesses actually are using AI today to replace jobs that previously would have required a human? Furthermore, don't you think it's possible for a real human customer service agent to make such a blunder as what happened in that case?
It shows that some are trying, and failing at that.
> Furthermore, don't you think it's possible for a real human customer service agent to make such a blunder as what happened in that case?
One human? Sure, some people are plain dumb. The thing is you don't give your entire customer service under the responsibility of a single dumb human. You have thousands of them and only a few of them could do the same mistake. When using LLMs, you're not gonna use thousands of different LLMs so such mistakes can have an impact that's multiple order of magnitude higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they aren't. Some jobs are being scaled down because of the increased productivity of other people with AI, but none of the jobs you listed are within reach of autonomous AI work with today's technology (as illustrated by the AirCanada hilarious case).
I would split the difference and say a bunch of companies are /trying/ to replace workers with LLMs but are finding out, usually with hilarious results, that they are not reliable enough to be left on their own. However, there are some boosts that can be made to augment the performance of other workers if they are used carefully and with attention to detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your brain is undergoing some process and outputting the next word which has some reasonable statistical distribution. You're not consciously thinking about "hmm what word do I put so it's not just random gibberish" but as a whole you're doing the same thing. From my point of view as someone reading the comment I can't tell if it's written by an LLM or not, so I can't use that to conclude if you're intelligent or not…
"Your brain is undergoing some process and outputting the next word which has some reasonable statistical distribution. You're not consciously thinking about "hmm what word do I put so it's not just random gibberish" but as a whole you're doing the same thing. From my point of view as someone reading the comment I can't tell if it's written by an LLM or not, so I can't use that to conclude if you're intelligent or no…
Since we don't really understand the brain that well that's not surprising
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a lot of jobs are being replaced by AI already... comms/copywriting/customer service/off shored contract technicals roles especially.
In the sense that less people are needed to do many kinds of work, they chat AI’s are now reducing people. Which is not quite the same as replacing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they aren't. Some jobs are being scaled down because of the increased productivity of other people with AI, but none of the jobs you listed are within reach of autonomous AI work with today's technology (as illustrated by the AirCanada hilarious case).
Doesn't the Air Canada case demonstrate the exact opposite, that real businesses actually are using AI today to replace jobs that previously would have required a human? Furthermore, don't you think it's possible for a real human customer service agent to make such a blunder as what happened in that case?
Anyone experienced ability to self-correct from an "A.I" ?
Opus (and all prior Claude models) still do not correctly answer the Sally question, unfortunately: Q: Sally (a girl) has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. How many sisters does Sally have? A: Okay, let's organize the information we have: Sally is a girl. Sally has 3 brothers. Each of Sally's brothers has 2 sisters. Now, let's think about this step by step: We know that Sally is a girl, so she is a sister to he…
Mixtral 8x7b-32768 got it on the first try: Sally has 1 sister. Here's the logic behind this: 1. We know that Sally has 3 brothers. 2. Then we are told that each brother has 2 sisters. 3. Since Sally is one of the children in the family, there must be another sister besides Sally. 4. Therefore, Sally has 1 sister. The number of sisters Sally has is not affected by the number of brothers she has, so the information ab…
This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for: > Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the…
Its not your model. You didn't spend literally billions of dollars developing it. So you can either use it according to the terms of the people who developed it (like literally any commercially available software ever) or not use it at all.
I just released a plugin for my LLM command-line tool that adds support for the new Claude 3 models: pipx install llm llm install llm-claude-3 llm keys set claude # paste Anthropic API key here llm -m claude-3-opus '3 fun facts about pelicans' llm -m claude-3-opus '3 surprising facts about walruses' Code here: https://github.com/simonw/llm-claude-3 More on LLM: https://llm.datasette.io/
https://gist.github.com/vladstudio/92efe283453f5f22d4606947b...