Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or worse, fraud to make their stock go up edit: s/stuck/stock
Why did you have to mention your edit?
It was a late one
Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
641–650 of 683 posts
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#642Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but lots of teams use it. I bet most team members who switched from Slack to Microsoft Teams do not feel like they consented or were asked for their opinions beforehand.
That distinction doesn't matter to Microsoft. Also it's funny how Google chat products once again go unmentioned... Their alternative is Chat (or idk, chat.google.com), and it's possibly even worse than Teams.
I think Google chat(s)'s issue may be lack of features and marketing, Microsoft Teams is drowning with bugs, performance issues, poor UI/UX design, etc.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, one could describe the duck as being made of air and vinyl polymer, which in combination are less dense than water. That's not how humans would normally describe it, but that's kind of arbitrary; consider how aerogel is often described as being mostly made of air.
Is an aircraft carrier made of a material that is less dense than water?
I think you can safely say that air is a critical component of an aircraft carrier. I suppose the frame of it is not made of air, but the ballasts are designed with air in mind and are certainly made to utilize air. The whole system fails without air, meaning that it requires air to function. It comes down to a definitional argument of the word "made" which is pointless.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s not cheating because the ask was “something” not “some program”
Which is only not cheating if it was presented as not a program and a fellow project mate sending out an email. In US colleges at least (only because that’s where I have personal experience…not because I believe standards are any higher or lower here), this is cheating if they led their professor to believe that it was indeed the raspberry pi sending out an email rather than someone at the back of the class.
While it’s minimal (and some might consider it below the bar), they did successfully use the pi to read an external moisture sensor and print the results to the screen.
They did use the hardware provided, and did use software to accomplish a goal. If the teacher just wanted to test what problem solving skills the students walked in, I’d say that’s a fair result.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
That distinction doesn't matter to Microsoft. Also it's funny how Google chat products once again go unmentioned... Their alternative is Chat (or idk, chat.google.com), and it's possibly even worse than Teams.
I think Google chat(s)'s issue may be lack of features and marketing, Microsoft Teams is drowning with bugs, performance issues, poor UI/UX design, etc.
I haven't used Teams enough to say, but Chat suffers from the latter things. UI keeps randomly changing in big ways, threading is confusing, there's serious lag just switching chats, takes forever to load, feature set is only on par with Slack circa 2015.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever since the "stochastic parrots" and "super-autocomplete" criticisms of LLMs, the question is whether hallucinations are solvable in principle at all. And if hallucinations are solvable, it would of such basic and fundamental scientific importance that I think would be another mini-breakthrough in AI.
An interesting perspective on this I’ve heard discussed is whether hallucinations ought to be solved at all, or whether they are core to the way human intelligence works as well, in the sense that that is what is needed to produce narratives. I believe it is Hinton that prefers “confabulation” to “hallucination” because it’s more accurate. The example in the discussion about hallucination/confabulation was that of so…
I've read similar thoughts before about AI art. When the process was still developing, you would see AI "artwork" that was the most inhumanly uncanny pictures. Things that twisted the physical forms that human artists perceive with the fundamental pixel format/denoising algorithms that the AI works with. It was just uniquely AI and not something a human being would be able to replicate. "There are no errors just happy accidents." In there you say there was a real art medium/genre with its own intrinsic worth.
After a few months AI developers refined the process to just replicate images so they looked like a human being made them, in effect killing what was the real AI art.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow this is such an awful excuse. Here’s a whole list of projects intended for kids. https://all3dp.com/2/best-raspberry-pi-projects-for-kids/ It includes building out a whole weather station which includes a humidity sensor as one of the many things it can do.
> Wow this is such an awful excuse. yes for whomever organized such a curse and didn't give such guidance. And besides curse asked for project to do something. It did. It printed lines. We can call the email gimmick, the marketeering strategy, making a turd look good. Don't blame students for failure of whomever designed the curse.
So did they disclose that all the Pi did was printed lines?
The problem with the email isn’t it’s a gimmick etc. it’s that it appears quite clear that the students created the impression that it was the Pi doing it.
Your excuse that it’s difficult for first year college students with no coding experience to do something useful with the Rapberry Pi is disproven by the fact that there exist many extremely useful projects that kids with no coding experience can do, so college students almost certainly should be able to do without needing to resort to gimmicks.
So I don’t understand your complaints about the course. It’s clearly not too hard which is what you’re implying. And if you’re suggesting that the wording for the project wasn’t clear enough then that’s a huge claim to make considering you don’t know what the wording was.
Also, college (at least in the U.S.) was never about playing funny word games with the professor. There’s a level of maturity, reasonableness, and respect that is expected of the students. None of which is indicated in the response here.
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#648Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is only not cheating if it was presented as not a program and a fellow project mate sending out an email. In US colleges at least (only because that’s where I have personal experience…not because I believe standards are any higher or lower here), this is cheating if they led their professor to believe that it was indeed the raspberry pi sending out an email rather than someone at the back of the class.
While it’s minimal (and some might consider it below the bar), they did successfully use the pi to read an external moisture sensor and print the results to the screen. They did use the hardware provided, and did use software to accomplish a goal. If the teacher just wanted to test what problem solving skills the students walked in, I’d say that’s a fair result.
Again, it’s easy. Did they present it as that? Or did they fake stuff to make it appear to the professor that they got the hardware and software to do more than it did?
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow this is such an awful excuse. yes for whomever organized such a curse and didn't give such guidance. And besides curse asked for project to do something. It did. It printed lines. We can call the email gimmick, the marketeering strategy, making a turd look good. Don't blame students for failure of whomever designed the curse.
So did they disclose that all the Pi did was printed lines? The problem with the email isn’t it’s a gimmick etc. it’s that it appears quite clear that the students created the impression that it was the Pi doing it. Your excuse that it’s difficult for first year college students with no coding experience to do something useful with the Rapberry Pi is disproven by the fact that there exist many extremely useful projec…
> There’s a level of maturity, reasonableness, and respect that is expected of the students.
Given that the general teaching style of colleges isn't unique to the US, and based on my experience throughout my degree at a similar institution, I somehow doubt that statement.
> It’s clearly not too hard which is what you’re implying.
It sounded like the students received literally no guidance, in the way the course is described. These types of assignments usually result in those with previous programming experience showing off their skills, while the actual rookie students are left in the mud. I.e. an assignment that targets the top 20% of the class.
Regardless, to my knowledge I never cheated during my college degree, but I can't hold it against people that do. Criticism such as yours disregards the reality that students face, pressure to graduate with good marks and whatnot. Not cheating will put you at an disadvantage, because your competition is actively doing so and they are already skewing the marks that way. If the intention of the assignment was to identify honest work, it was certainly structured wrong (as a required submission would have eliminated the cheaters).
Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can depend a lot on the context, which we don't have a lot of. Looking at this a different way, they gave first-year students, likely with no established pre-requistites, an open-ended project with fixed hardware but no expectation to submit the final project for review. If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with…
> If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code. Wait, is your argument honestly "it's not cheating because they just trusted the students"? There's a huge difference between demoing something as "this is what we did" vs "we didn't quite get there, but this is what we're envisioning." Edit: You all are re…
> Put a dog in a dress and call it a pretty woman and I'll call you a conman.
Well if you're the TA and you're unwilling/too lazy to call out the conman, I call you an accomplice! Also, since when was the ideal scientific rigour ever build on interpersonal trust?