gisely

I’m with you on that.

Do investors still not care about revenue and profits at a $300 billion valuation? Seems like the bigger problem for them is that they are losing money on the vast majority of those WAUs with no obvious route to profitability because most them will simply stop using it if forced to pay for it.

I bet my entire Beanie Baby stash that your NFT stash won't be worth anything by the time you're ready to judge this bet.

The enshitification cycle is moving fast these days.

Yep. This example basically convinced me that they were unable to figure out anything actually useful to do with the model's new capabilities. Which makes me wonder how capable the new model in fact is.

What exactly does he get from people linking to a video of him being crude. He's real estate CEO not a social media influencer. He might get a thrill out of being a public asshole, but it's not like he somehow profiting off his infamy.

How dare you profane the contributions of a literal god of AI!

Not according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...

More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.

It's weird seeing comments like this that argue simultaneously: 1) LLMs aren't stochastic parrots anymore! 2) You can't prove humans aren't stochastic parrots!

It pretty clear the whole point is minimize the difference between us and AI, but it does feel like you are undermining you argument by trying to work it from both sides. It reminds me some accused of crime who say both "I didn't do it!" and "If did it, it wasn't wrong!".

Humans aren't stochastic parrots. You can't "prove" this because it's not mathematical fact, but there is plenty evidence from study how to brain works to show this. Hell, it's even readily apparent from introspection if you'd bother to check. LLMs on the hand basically are stochastic parrots because they just autoregressive token predictors. They might become less so due to architectural changes made by the companies working on them, but it isn't going to just creep up on us like some goddamn emergence boogeyman.

Not really an open market when one company has as large a share of sales as steam. Valve may have a different ethos from Apple, but both agree on principle of extracting monopoly rents.

So fun much scrolling past all the blue check morons at the top of all the replies to any popular post. No changes at all.

I’m skeptical. There is a lot wiggle room in “no specific training”. Could just mean the didn’t fine tune the model for any of tests. Their training data probably included many past LSAT exams and certainly included many instances of people discussing how to solve LSAT problems.

Yes such useful and constructive new ways organize Ponzi schemes. Andreessen is a member of the laptop class himself, just one of the most grating ones. Seems to think telling other people to build makes him a builder. YIMBY in his tweets, NIMBY in his streets.

Excited a future where a bullshit generator helps automate the rationalization of redlining! So great! Just like this website and community around.

Depends on how that labor is valued. Just because a project creates jobs with export value in country doesn’t mean that project is a net benefit for the people of that country. A project like a waste reprocessing facility might create exportable labor for the country that hosts it, while simultaneously harming the health or people who work in the facility and those who live around it. Does it generally make for a just system if rich countries are allowed place facilities they don’t want in poor ones?

I think the answer depends on how well labor in those countries is rewarded for working at such facilities. So I certainly hope countries that are considering hosting those projects drive a hard bargain on price, starting by acknowledging that what they are giving up is real. The land use is a real concern, yes even in the desert.

Hmm? No equating happening in my comment. The point was that just because statement is about a political group doesn't mean it's a only an opinion. Mentioning Nazi Germany is just using an extreme example to make clear that statements about political groups aren't inherently mere opinions.

What makes it an opinion? If I were to say that the Nazi party in Germany peddled in hatred and demonization of already-marginalized groups would you say that is an opinion? Just because a statement pertains to political groups doesn't make it a mere opinion.

You do that John Galt.

Yes the HN cogniscenti have such a fine sense of humor. Why share some of it lads?

Nah man, jokes are forbidden on HN.

Definitely seems like more of reddit comment than a HN one. I had a laugh though so thanks and here's to more laughs until dang shows up and takes all the fun out of HN for umpteenth time.

Buying stock back is apocalypse prep?

I strongly disagree. I would quite happy to invest a venture like if I was confident it would help us make a transition to renewable energy faster, even if the ROI was significantly worse on average than S&P. My concern is how do I know that buying solar panels with them will actually help to increase the percent of renewable energy being supplied by the grid. I don't want to just help some commercial investor who has built out a solar project recover the capital they've put into it unless they'll guarantee they are going to put that capital back into building more renewable generation.

The could have chosen to work on smaller models and used their already substantial amount of funding to be truly open. Instead they chose a path that demonstrates the Open part in OpenAI was just marketing.

You can use it to infill subregions. Or you could add a “but <your requested edit>“ to your and run again. It’s not super robust to prompts involving complicated composition though so that might not be a reliable strategy.

This is about heating more than cooking as heating is a way bigger energy use for most households, but you are seriously proposing it would a smart move to build out gas delivery infrastructure just so people can keep cooking with gas?

More importantly, please stop using the tired old excuse that we should wait to electrify until all electric generation is renewable. Converting domestic heating infrastructure to electric is a massive project that will probably take decades and represents billions of tons of CO2 emissions already baked in. We need to start now. Deciding to build new gas infrastructure today is committing to burn more gas for decades.

It’s deeply depressing that none of the comments here so far are positive toward this move. The earth will be utterly transformed by climate change in next century to detriment of nearly every living thing on it. We have only one reliable mechanism to mitigate to harm we are causing: ending fossil fuel use. To do that everything that currently uses fossil energy needs to be electrified. Every year we waste letting new buildings get built with gas furnaces makes it that much harder to limit the damage we’ve caused.

Stop using the fact much electrical generation still uses fossil fuels to argue against electrification. Petition to bring new renewable generation online and close coal and gas powered plants instead. Stop romanticizing a gas stove that pollutes the air in your home as you cook at it. Get an induction stove heats just as fast instead.

Stop pretending we have time to “wait and assess” and starting fighting for a livable future on only home we have.

Your professor lied.

Chromatic aberration may be a contributing factor, but I am surprised the author didn’t mention that S cones (which we use to perceive blue) are only 2% of the cones in the retina [1]. Additionally S cones are distributed randomly when compared the regular lattice of M and L cones. The distribution of the different cone types alone may be sufficient to explain why our acuity for blues is impoverished relative to reds and greens.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

What I learned from it is that it this isn't a community I want to participate in. It will be easier now for everyone here to enjoy jokes about awful things they would do journalists if only it weren't for the Geneva conventions without feeling guilty.

What was wrong with my first comment that you chastised me for?