I will tell you how: derangement, a failure to engage with society and the degeneration/depravity of being one step away from making MIDI component improvised explosives and emailing your remaining friends a manifesto.
The car industry has been lobbying congress and locales for 50+ years. Laws like jaywalking were at the behest of car companies, and that alone makes walking legally very difficult in nearly any area with a downtown.
The lack of subsidies certainly don't help. Neither does the insatiable appetite for new cars.
I assume this was 4o? Whenever someone says GPT would be "useless" at the given task, I think they've only tried it with older/dumber models. Almost without fail 4 seems to get the answer right.
I would argue that the neutrino is relatively large compared to the quanta typical of these kinds of tests, but in the abstract they suggested a basketball!
This is a really great experiment. It's nice to see real work being done on the ground with these kinds of tests and write-ups. I am not a physicist but I imagine this could have implications for gravitational wave detection by improving LIGO's optical sensors, maybe optical sensors in general?
Or maybe this could help with tracking time more accurately? Hopefully someone with knowledge can chime in with what this means in practice.
This line of reasoning that LLMs "only predict" the next token is akin to saying humans can only think or speak one word at a time. Yes, we use one token/word at a time, but it is the aggregate thought that matters, regardless of what underlies it.
I will miss the ease of use of Google Domains. I fear the new Squarespace domain management site will be rife with confounding settings and lit up with various upsells. They must have paid a handsome price for this.
I strongly disagree with Cal on most of his points here; he effectively recapitulates the "Its just guessing the next token" argument. In his example, he explains that ChatGPT couldn't possibly understand how to remove a PB&J from a VCR, but asking GPT what to do discredits this analogy almost entirely. It is true that GPT doesn't have servos with feedback or other hardware to remove a sandwich itself, but it can certainly explain the process including how to clean the leftover residue and follows the details by suggestion you seek out a professional technician.
In the same article he admits ChatGPT is immensely complex and that "any number of humans" could not reproduce the rules by which it works; but then goes on to assure the reader that is naive and is not a threat to their jobs or safety.
This seems really disingenuous to me given he's a professor of computer science at a respected university. This kind of cynicism, that you might call naive, leads readers to put aside concerns about safety.
I strongly disagree with Cal on most of his points here; Cal wrote an article in the New Yorker yesterday that effectively recapitulates the "Its just guessing the next token" argument. In his example, he explains that ChatGPT couldn't possibly understand how to remove a PB&J from a VCR, but asking GPT what to do discredits this analogy almost entirely. It is true that GPT doesn't have servos with feedback or other hardware to remove a sandwich itself, but it can certainly explain the process including how to clean the leftover residue and follows the details by suggestion you seek out a professional technician.
In the same article he admits ChatGPT is immensely complex and that "any number of humans" could not reproduce the rules by which it works; but then goes on to assure the reader that is naive and is not a threat to their jobs or safety.
This seems really disingenuous to me given he's a professor of computer science at a respected university. This kind of cynicism, that you might call naive, leads readers to put aside concerns about safety.
For a significant number of software developers, GPT and Github's Copilot have replaced StackOverflow, and even Googling more generally. It is more than an autocomplete, it is the best resource for software development by far, IMO. It's a tutor that's an expert in virtually every topic.
The goal posts for AI are moving quickly, and in my mind, a lot of the criticism os too shallow.
People want it to perform better than any expert human at any possible subject before it's considered "real AI". It isn't enough for critics for it to be better than the average person at virtually everything its put to the test on.
It seems like there is some resentment and almost anger at this technology, particularly with the artistic AIs like Midjourney. I can understand that more readily, but what's the real beef with ChatGPT?
I am surprised by how many, even among the tech community, wholesale disregard GPT as a glorified auto-complete, or "a statistical model on human information".
What, then, is the human brain if not a trained statistical model? Granted it is considerably more sophisticated in some ways, but in many other ways it is less sophisticated and less capable.
We are moving the goal posts on AGI very quickly, but it is catching up. I think we need to appreciate the nature of this milestone if we have any hope of controlling potential singularities.