Sleeping with your Vaporeon: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EWMgB26bmU
Sleeping with your Vaporeon: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EWMgB26bmU
Apocalypticism will always be in fashion.
Asking that question is the first step people need in order to finally come to that conclusion. We all just completed the process a loooooong time ago.
Sure, go for it. But good luck paying an army of copywriters to summarize every article you read.
That’s not what I’m implying. What I’m saying is that wasting time and effort on quality is pointless when the threshold for success is low.
For example, I could use aerospace quality parts (perfectly machined to micron-level tolerances) to build a toaster. However, while this would not increase the performance meaningfully, the cost would be orders of magnitude greater. Instead I can use shitty off-the-shelf parts because it doesn’t really make a difference.
Maybe in other words, engineering tolerances apply to LLMs too. They’re crude devices, but it’s totally fine if you have a crude problem.
It might be all I care about. Humans might always be better, but AI only has to be good enough at something to be valuable.
For example, summarizing an article might be incredibly low stakes (I’m feeling a bit curious today), or incredibly high stakes (I’m preparing a legal defense), depending on the context. An AI is sufficient for one use but not the other.
This seems to be millions of times more accurate, according to the article.
If AI is really that disruptive (and I believe it will be) then shouldn’t we bend over backwards to make it happen? Because otherwise it’s our geopolitical rivals who will be in control of it.
I’d disagree with that. Randomness is orthogonal to player agency. Both can exist at once.
Yeah this is the opposite of “player agency” which is the whole point of RPGs.
That’s because they are serious about it. Chip fabrication will likely determine the victor of the next 25 years in world politics.
I don’t think the concept is inherently flawed - it’s a presentation / ux issue more than anything.
Would be hilarious as the final Jeopardy so the contestants have to write it out like that.
A better clue might be
This direction and pet combo became a common “gotcha” in the early 2000s.
We’re in that awkward part of AI where all the degenerates are using it in unethical ways, and it will take time for legislation and human culture to catch up. The early internet was a wild place too.
Tools that are well loved like that are always worth it imo. Anything to simulate the creative side of the brain.
Hi, I have a PhD in “for the love of god don’t put nuts in brownies” and the answer is no, do not put nuts in brownies.
Turns out language is pretty damn flexible. Even if I made an obvious mistake, you meant what I knew.
Had an executive assistant at my company who did very little if anything. Nobody knew why she was kept around and paid so much. Everyone pressured the CEO to fire her, but he strongly resisted. Eventually she was fired, but immediately threatened to sue for sexual harassment. CEO threw her a lovely settlement check despite claiming that nothing ever happened. Mmhmm.
Clever, but might be too niche of a reference for people to understand.