651–660 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and have you tried it? It’s as dogshit as the original Bard.
I've been using Gemini in Bard since the launch, with respect to coding it is outperforming GPT4 in my opinion. There is some convergence in the answers,but Bard is outputting really good code now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
For anyone not getting why this is cheating, try this. Pretend you are the teacher. You saw students pull this stunt and say that it was a live demo. Would you feel like you were deceived if later you found out it was not in fact how they presented it? (I'm honestly unsure how you can answer this in the negative)
Or how about you watch an ad of someone taking to a box and the box responding, then you buy the box and it's a pile of rubber bands and paper clips. Would you want your money back?
This must’ve been shot by one of the directors who did Apple’s new show Extrapolations. Very plausible illustration of AI in daily life though, despite the aggressive climate change claims made in it. But neither AI not climate are there yet…
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…
I was fooled. The model release announcement said it could accept video and audio multi-modal input. I understood that there was a lot of editing and cutting, but I really believed I was looking at an example of video and audio input. I was completely impressed since it’s quite a leap to go from text and still images to “eyes and ears.” There’s even the segment where instruments are drown and music was generated. I t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you make carbonated soda you put carbon dioxide in deliberately and use a sealed container to hold it in. When you make a rubber duck you don't put air in it deliberately and it is not sealed. Carbonated soda ceases to be carbonated when you remove the air. A rubber duck in a vacuum is still a rubber duck and it even still floats.
If the rubber duck has air inside, it is known, and intentional, for it is part of that design. If you remove the air from the duck, and stop it so it won't refill, you have a flat rubber duck, which is useless for its design. Much as flat pop is useless for its design. And this nuance is even more nuance-ish than this devil's advocate post.
But pedantic correctness isn't even what matters here. The model made a statement where the straightforward interpretation is false and misleading. A person who didn't know better would be misled. Whether you can possibly come up with a tortured alternative interpretation that is technically not incorrect is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One has nothing to do with the other. There's no rule about all broken tools because they can be broken in different ways. What's so difficult about my hypothetical? I laid it all out for you.
I assumed you understood we reached the end of the usefulness of your hypothetical to the original analogy since, as you said, the tools can be broken in different ways. I tried to introduce a scenario that was more applicable and less theoretical so that we could discuss those particular points. If we do somehow try to apply your analogy, it would indicate that the LLM output is flawed in a way we cannot scrutinize…
Yes, it does. People are regularly using LLMs to brief themselves on topics they are ignorant about. Are you actually serious?
>This is more closely related to a computing service -- of which you are an active user of. You are using a "broken" computer right now, according to your definition of broken correct ?
Doesn't really matter, because I'm not relying upon the computer for the verity of its functions
I was fooled. The model release announcement said it could accept video and audio multi-modal input. I understood that there was a lot of editing and cutting, but I really believed I was looking at an example of video and audio input. I was completely impressed since it’s quite a leap to go from text and still images to “eyes and ears.” There’s even the segment where instruments are drown and music was generated. I t…
Seems reminiscent of a video where the lead research department within Google is an animation studio (wish I could remember more about that video) Doing all these hype videos just for the sake of satisfying shareholders or whatever is just making me loose trust in their research division. I don't think they did anything like this when they released Bert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I demo'd a full browser office suite in 1998 called Office Wherever (o-w.com). It used Java applets to do a lot of the more tricky functions. Shopped it around VCs. Got laughed out of all the meetings. "Companies storing their documents on the Internet?! You're out of your mind!"
Im curious if the code would be available somewhere? I have to admit I'm curious how it worked!