Like most popular social media sites, you usually won’t see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It’s mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Sure, in the short term. I’ve switched to DDG and I’m not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they’ll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he’s dogmatic and petty but I haven’t seen a specific thing he’s been wrong about, but I’d love examples.
Really neat that water can turn into a conductive metal at high enough pressures such as in the core of Neptune.
The fact that the effects of insane pressure on matter could get us closer to being able to generate fusion power is awesome and kind of scary.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you’re not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
deleted by creator
I’m going to use those things as answer machines and you can’t stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn’t exist. To its credit, I said, “Are you sure about [function]?” and it said, “I’m sorry, I got confused. That function doesn’t exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources” and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
It’s technically the GPT-4 base model but not the one running on ChatGPT.
Whatever fine-tuning OpenAI has done is leagues better than what Microsoft’s team has done with Bing Chat.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don’t understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I’m ten, explain as if I’m an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don’t really agree that it’s a “parlor trick”.
Keep up the good work. You’re a great avocate.
I was kind of with you until saying they’re “being a fucking idiot.”
Encouraging someone to help out? Great.
Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.
I asked GPT-4 with the exact same wording and it answered:
“N/A”
Fascinating that people with stutters can be helped by practicing speaking with speech jammers.
It makes me think about how ADHD medication will make people without ADHD more distractible while it’ll help focus people with it.
John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.
“I’m not naked, it’s homeopathic clothing.”
I’ve often looked out of a 20th story window at pedestrians and thought, “They have no idea someone is looking at them right now,” and then I always wonder how many times that has happened to me.
That must happen to people all the time who visit that church.
I’ve been perplexed by this too, but imagine a world where people who want to automate advertising via chatbots (on Facebook, Instagram, etc) can pick between paying OpenAI or Google. I guess Meta would rather people pay less on chatbots and more on Facebook advertising costs.
I think that’s their point: That maybe, as long as a candidate is mentally fit, then voters ought to be able to continue voting for them if they feel like the candidate is still worth voting for.
Honestly, if there was some kind of magical bullet to simply ban candidates who are mentally unfit (i.e. losing their marbles) from holding office that couldn’t be exploited, I think a lot of people would find that preferable to an age limit.
That doesn’t address issues like politicians who are too technologically illiterate to do things like open PDF files, though.
Old-school AI systems from way back in the day called Expert Systems were just a crapload of IF statements. There’s never been a concrete agreed-upon definition of AI because there’s never been an agreed-upon definition of the word Intelligence.
Here are factors that might commonly be used to provide evidence for intent to eat:
Storing the body in a way that preserves it in ways appropriate for consumption but not medical use
Owning implements used specifically for the consumption of the target creature (e.g. a carving knife for a turkey, lobster crackers/pokers, etc.)
Possession of ingredients habitually consumed with the target creature
Communications or behavior signaling an intent to eat the target creature (this one is kind of obvious)
Carnivorous character/personality tendencies (potentially provided by character witnesses before or against the defendant)
Interesting idea that intent would be such an important part of their legal system.