jiocrag

You’re joking, right? The model that says Elon Musk could beat LeBron James in a 1 on 1 isn’t biased?

There's no way this is true.

same here. Paying for Pro ($200) but the "try it" link just leads to the Pro sign up page, where it says I'm already on Pro. Hyper intelligent coding agents, but can't make their website work.

Not at all. The model weights and training data remain the same, it's just RAG'ing real-time twitter data into its context window when returning results. It's like a worse version of Perplexity.

Excellent point. If they can figure out how to either remunerate or drive traffic to third parties in conjunction with this, it would be huge.

The first sentence is right. The second is wrong, as implied by the first. If raising interest rates would exacerbate a recession and thereby unemployment, the fed will not do it just because prices are rising. You are ignoring half of their mandate.

This is flat out wrong. The Fed raises and lowers interest rates to stimulate or tamp down demand. Raising interest rates because prices rise while demand drops due to a trade war would accomplish nothing.

have you tried Buildkite? https://buildkite.com

why is this impressive at all? It effectively amounts to correcting a typo.

This is.... underwhelming.

Is there any way to deploy this to an existing postgres database or does it need to use the docker instance.

Questionable. Plenty of animals cache, and therefore "ferment," their food. Why have they not developed hominid brains?

what

"Our apologies, but there seems to have been a problem communicating with the Heroku API."

But the status page says all is well...

"I go to the concert to watch a screen and not the band."

Chuckles in Phish fan

which variant?

If Bard is using PaLM 2, Google is in serious trouble. Here's its offering for "the simplest PostgreSQL query to get month-over-month volume and percentage change." Note that no actual calculations take place and the query generates a syntax error because it references a phantom column. GPT 3.5 and 4 handle this with ease.

SELECT month, volume, percentage_change FROM ( SELECT date_trunc('month', created_at) AS month, SUM(quantity) AS volume FROM orders GROUP BY date_trunc('month', created_at) ) AS monthly_orders ORDER BY month;

I did read the paper and Wei is responding to it, and others. What do you mean "It's not a different metric?"

It’s literally addressed in his first bullet point…

“ Response: While there is evidence that some tasks that appear emergent under exact match have smoothly improving performance under another metric, I don’t think this rebuts the significance of emergence, since metrics like exact match are what we ultimately want to optimize for many tasks.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj2XGrduDb4

What's the methodology? It's an interesting metric as long as there is some rationale attached.

How could we possibly ever test for "not feeling like an automaton?" The only possible test, it seems, is internal subjective experience. Even if something reported this, how would you ever verify it?

Aren't we inherently projecting feelings onto anything that isn't inside our own direct experience? There is no way to confirm any alleged sentience outside of your own "feelings" is not an automaton, including other humans.

Fortune now confirming: https://fortune.com/2023/02/09/github-is-laying-off-10-of-st...

Highly recommend this radiolab episode, which covers much of the content of this article including the Beaumont origin story and rat experiments in fascinating detail. https://radiolab.org/episodes/197112-guts

That's a different product

places I've hung them:

-strong tree branch -basketball hoop bars -sturdy rafter -high pull up bar

AFAIK, we have no way of assessing whether “someone” has acquired new information other than that someone demonstrating their knowledge. We can’t MRI “acquisition of information”. So, as per this thought experiment, we have no way of telling if Mary gained new information by “seeing” red when she already “knew” what red was and could interpret it as such. That’s the whole point of the the thought experiment, which clearly went over your head.

"Simply devise a way to test for information predicated on trichromacy using bichromatic metamers." lol... "Simply..." this is literally the 'the explanatory gap' described in the article. We don't currently have a way to measure if the brain "acquired new information" when it knows about something but then sees it for the first time... which is the whole point. "experience a functional difference" -- what does that even mean?

Your confusion is not the author's fault. You ignored the parameters of the thought experiment, which clearly state that she can discern colors without "seeing" them. The question is whether the subjective experience of "experiencing" color adds new information.