Did OpenAI ever actually announce anything publicly regarding a potential windsurf acquisition?
AFAICT most of the reporting was based on rumors or leaks. But they never actually announced an acquisition. Seems like Bloomberg may have made an oopsie here.
You don't think the literal nazi salute elon gave at a rally, twice, warrants any comparisons? Or that the administration flirts with annexing Canada, Greenland, and Palestine? Or that their support is driven through prejudice against migrants?
I wonder if we could add some type of verification registry. It would be nice if browser's could have a big indicator saying that this website is verified to associated with Dell inc.
How does automation reasoning actually check a response against the set of rules without using ML? Wouldn't it still need a language model to compare the response to the rule?
Totally agree with the sentiment. I find the constant debates on "is AI conscious" or "can AI understand" exhausting. You can't have a sound argument when neither party even agrees on a concrete definition of consciousness or understanding.
Regarding this line:
> ChatGPT can already tell you a lot about itself (showing awareness) and will gladly walk you through its “thinking” if you ask politely.
Is it actually walking you through its thinking? Or is it walking you through an imagined line of thinking?
Regardless, your main point still stands. That a program doesn't think the same way a human does, doesn't mean it isn't "thinking".
Which is a shame. Because car travel in the US is still wildly more expensive than high-speed rail in other countries, while being a vastly inferior form of transportation.
Will this software come with perpetual maintenance updates? For how long? Do I get any new features for free? If not, is it really pay "once"?
Software is never "done". Developers need to be actively involved throughout the lifecycle of a software product. Which, to me, makes this sort of model unsustainable. I'd rather know that software I rely on won't be abandoned once the base of new customers drys up. And I don't mind paying for that.
> Easier refactoring (no wondering who all the consumers of GET /users are)
Unless your API calls are properly abstracted into function calls. No reason you can't just have a `getUsers()` function on the frontend, and then use your favorite “find all references” tool from there.
No, it doesn't. That quick-answer doesn't even mention rising tuition costs. It's only tangentially related. The existence of government backed student loans does not in itself prove they are the main cause of increased tuition.
To prove that claim, you'd need to actually demonstrate some sort of causal relationship and have data to back it up
For example, you could make the argument that:
1. Demand is the primary cause of tuition increases
2. Government backed student loans are the primary cause for the increase in demand
I believe that 1 is almost certainly the main cause of tuition cost increases. What I haven't seen any evidence for is 2. If it's true, show me the evidence. I'm open to it.
From what this article states and the research I've done, the main driver of demand is not cheap government loans. It's the labor market. The best jobs in this country require a college degree. That is what is probably driving demand, the desire to earn a liveable wage. Not the fact that you can get a cheap loan.
The claim: > Main cause: Government-backed student loans.
I've read the article. It discusses student loans and how they've skyrocketed, but never makes the claim that their availability is the cause. Instead, it argues a change in America's "labor profile" is to blame for the rise in demand (which, in turn, leads to higher tuition):
> Rising enrollment is also associated with a changing US labor profile; for example, manufacturing jobs were eclipsed by “business and professional services” jobs as well as healthcare, education, and retail jobs.
Going further, the author suggests we need to forgive/cancel the student loans:
> These loans should be forgiven/cancelled
To me, this implies the author does not believe federal student loans are to blame.
Common sense is often wrong. I haven't found any reliable source yet that even mentions the availability government loans as being a driving factor. Based on the limited research I've done over the last few minutes, the main drivers appear to be:
1. A large increase in demand for College. I could imagine this may be, in part, due to more accessible student loans. But it appears that many factors have come into play, and the main one is the perception that you cannot get a liveable wage in this country without a college degree.
2. Less funding from state governments
3. Increased spending in administration and student services unrelated to education.
I see where you're coming from and it's clear you have strong feelings on this matter. However, I believe there might be a misunderstanding here. The goal of diversity initiatives isn't about devaluing any particular group, it's about ensuring that the opportunities and benefits are more equitably distributed across different communities.
When someone mentions a 'lack of Black representation', they're not saying that non-Black members are less valuable because of their skin color. Rather, they're highlighting that there appears to be a systemic issue preventing people of that particular race from participating or advancing in that space. By addressing these systemic issues, we can make organizations more inclusive and more representative of the broader community.
Nobody is suggesting that people are exchangeable units defined solely by their skin color. On the contrary, it's recognized that everyone is unique and has a diverse set of skills, experiences, and perspectives to contribute.
This does not mean discarding merit or reducing people to their race, but rather acknowledging that societal, cultural, and systemic barriers have created unequal access to opportunities. The ultimate goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their race, has an equal opportunity to succeed.
I'm confused. The claim is that GPT-4 has a world model, not necessarily that GPT-3.5 does not. All that tweet shows is that GPT-3.5 can also give a correct answer. How does this invalidate the author's original claim?
https://drew.ltd