robotpepi

Chatgpt routinely cites and uses papers I don't have access to because they're behind a paywall. I don't think OpenAI is paying for all that copyright. That's in my opinion way more serious.

people here focus too much on the numbers, the exact values, the details, and end up missing completely the point.

so many people missing the point...

try to get out of the box

managers will simply direct them

that Made me laugh. what you say won't happen. it's not that AI won't be sufficiently intelligent, it's that managers are not.

give some examples or real insights, otherwise it's difficult to take you seriously

and of everyone else, right? what service or product is only available to the US? Even with Chinese models lagging behind, the difference in capabilities is not much.

did you teach him the words? Mine has learned some just by context (he's still quite young though, barely 2 years old).

Animals' intelligence have evolved for survival and designing experiments to test those are quite hard.

My conure is extremely intelligent at times, learning a trick at the second try or doing what I ask him immediately. Most of the time, though, he understands but decides to just ignore me.

If iPads couldn't do anything, why would people buy them consistently?

It seems you're way overestimating how logical people's choices are.

But it's such an overkill. In any case, the question was a bit rhetorical, and highly subjective.

I'd add the pattern matching syntax. it's so natural for a mathematician.

If they are using a PhD but their competitors are using

god what are these assumptions

ok, but everything depends on your numbers being correct. 99% improved efficiency seems kind of a way too optimistic prediction.

I'm no asking how to change it. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the market is some mysterious unreachable force. To be honest, at this point it's clear that you're being condescending and assuming people believe something foolish instead of trying to understand what they're actually saying.

we had local, small and noche business before. and even today.

the point again is that nobody says that certain mechanism of the market can have positive effects. the point is that way overestimated. we have extremely complex procedures that cost insanely amounts of money for stuff like ads. we could have a fraction of that power and people would still know about the products they need, etc.

Yes, it was clear that you wanted to refocus this as a moral problem of people. But that's irrelevant. The point of the guy above is that there is a system (the market) that creates certain incentives, and as a result, we have what we have. That's why I ask: what's your point? We still have all these problems.

it seems to me that the problem is quite the opposite. people believe that the "importance of allocation of capital" (good euphemism by the way) is WAY more important that it really is. do we need extra personalized ads in each of our machines? do we need instant financial trades and people optimizing instant transactions? We don't need a sophisticated AI to "inform" the customers.

there is a ton of things that are there simply because at some point people made money out of it, and then lobbied politicians to death to avoid regulation.

what's your point?

No one uses "ChatGPT" as a verb.

In my experience, they do, a lot. "I asked ChatGPT" is something I hear a lot. And yes, this example is not using ChatGPT as a verb, but the idea of brand recognition is there; it's just a grammar thing.

for sure they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make it "pro consumer" as said above

Probably $500K worth.

What life standards do you have!?

they explain it in the article: this is the first iteration, so they wanted to start with something simple, ie, this is a tech demo.

it's incredible how many people are commenting here without having read the article. they completely lost the point.

Are they becoming better at the same rate as before though?

this reminds me of that joke of someone saying "it's crazy that we have ten different standards for doing this", and then there're 11 standards

what kind of question is that

I cringe every time I came across these posts using words such as "humans" or "machines".

I mean, you're right but at the same time you're talking about something completely different. Software with security vulnerabilities is not a useful product. You don't address the raised issues.

I'm completely ignorant about this, but wouldn't it be possible to compile separately your project to improve compilation times? for instance, if you're using OP's vector library, which is self contained, you could compile that first and just once?

so O(l * n) is at least O(n).

I guess you mean "at least O(n*log(n))".