Comment Re:Counter examples (Score 1) 116
What a lovely strawman. My post is very clear. If you failed to understand it, that's not my problem.
What a lovely strawman. My post is very clear. If you failed to understand it, that's not my problem.
and maybe huge leaps have occurred since then
The idea that AI is advancing at an incredible rate simply isn't true. That is, we're not doing anything fundamentally different. What we are doing is using them differently. Different tricks to get effectively larger context windows without actually having a larger context window, invisibly modifying prompts, post-processing the output, using traditional algorithms in combination, etc. We're doing all sorts of things to try to improve the subjective quality of the output, but the models themselves are fundamentally the same as they've been for years.
It's becoming impossible for even the most optimistic to ignore the real problems and limitations of the technology, so the industry really needs people to believe that these are just temporary bumps in the road, soon to be solved as the technology advances. I don't expect the hype to last though the year though, now that we've crammed AI into everything.
To avoid any confusion, the way ChatGPT works and the way Eliza works really are fundamentally different. The psychology on the human side is the same though.
I think that in many cases migrants don't share our values.
"Our" values? I say that if they don't share your values, they're likely a net good.
That's what Texas Republicans want to be true, but targeted voter suppression efforts indicate that it's not nearly as red as it appears.
Self-driving software recognizes (classifies) and understands the significance of objects such as people, animals, road signs, traffic lights, stationary and moving vehicles of various sizes, lamp posts, trees, curbs, speedbumps, buildings, walls, traffic cones etc.
That's simply not true. You have some very mistaken ideas about what AI is and can do.
The mistake your making is thinking that AI operates at the same level of description that humans do, which they decidedly do not. People tend to think in terms of facts, concepts, objects, etc. LLMs operate on relationships between tokens. Not conceptually, of course, but probabilistically.
This is why you often hear people describe chatbots as a 'parlor trick'. People though Eliza understood and cared about their problems when such a thing was obviously impossible. People are quick to anthropomorphism things, it's just human nature. LLMs are no different, it just takes a little more effort to break the illusion. There is nothing at all like understanding there, a fact you can see for yourself with just a little probing.
That's pretty much all we do ourselves.
We don't know how we work, but we can say with absolute certainty that we don't work like an LLM. We know this because we can do things that LLMs provably can not do.
Public private partnerships in general are a problem. This isn't complicated. Every dollar they profit is a dollar wasted not providing services.
Not that the failure that is SpaceX was or will ever be profitable.
SpaceX is a leach. NASA is more than capable of building their own rockets safer, better, and cheaper. The only reason NASA buys anything from SpaceX is simple corruption. It shouldn't be "fine" with it. That's your money they're wasting.
If NASA had the safety record that SpaceX has, there would be riots in the streets calling for its dissolution.
Why would I try to convince you of anything? You're incapable of learning.
You're such a fucking joke and you don't even know it. Not unlike the private space industry.
Your idiotic ideology blinds you to basic facts. Get your head out of your ass.
Yes these fees, which are not profit based ta es as you incorrectly stated, can destroy a fledgling company.
Those fuel taxes pay for essential services directly related to their use of our airspace. If they can't run a profitable company without tax payers directly or indirectly subsidizing them, then the free market says they should die to make room for someone who can.
I'll take more space flights, please.
If you want more spaceflights, fund NASA. Private companies that depend on public money are nothing but parasites. Elmo and Bozo burn their own money on their silly vanity space companies.
Public private partnerships are theft. Every dollar they profit is a dollar that didn't go to providing the service we're paying for. This isn't complicated.
That's just reality, kid. Turn off NewsMax and open a book.
Don't be stupid. Taxes are paid on profits, not on revenues. It is mathematically impossible to "tax an industry to death".
We should be funding NASA, not these private-sector leeches. Let Elmo and Bozo fund their own stupid pissing match.
LOL! All that cope won't change reality, sunshine. Cry harder.
Exactly this. Still, like the post office, I think they do surprisingly well given that they're actively being sabotaged.
We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan