In other news, the catholic church is suing OpenAI because they had the idea to simply make suicide illegal a thousand years ago and have been using it ever since.
Not sure if it's a trade secret or a copyright case, the news often don't mention the fine details.
That's a good point. Here on
The movie analogy is old and outdated.
I'd compare it to a computer game. In any open world game, it seems that there are people living a life - going to work, doing chores, going home, etc. - but it's a carefully crafted illusion. "Carefully crafted" in so far as the developers having put exactly that into the game that is needed to suspend your disbelief and let you think, at least while playing, that there are real people. But behind the facade, they are not. They just disappear when entering their homes, they have no actual desires just a few numbers and conditional statements to switch between different pre-programmed behaviour patterns.
If done well, it can be a very, very convincing illusion. I'm sure that someone who hasn't seen a computer game before might think that they are actual people, but anyone with a bit of background knowledge knows they are not.
For AI, most of the people simply don't (yet?) have that bit of background knowledge.
And yet, when asked if the world is flat, they correctly say that it's not.
Despite hundreds of flat-earthers who are quite active online.
And it doesn't even budge on the point if you argue with it. So for whatever it's worth, it has learned more from scraping the Internet than at least some humans.
It's almost as if we shouldn't have included "intelligence" in the actual fucking name.
We didn't. The media and the PR departments did. In the tech and academia worlds that seriously work with it, the terms are LLMs, machine learning, etc. - the actual terms describing what the thing does. "AI" is the marketing term used by marketing people. You know, the people who professionally lie about everything in order to sell things.
professions that most certainly require a lot of critical thinking. While I would say that that is ludicrous
It is not just ludicrous, it is irrationally dangerous.
For any (current) LLM, whenever you interact with them you need to remember one rule-of-thumb (not my invention, read it somewhere and agree): The LLM was trained to generate "expected output". So always think that implicitly your prompt starts with "give me the answer you think I want to read on the following question".
Giving an EXPECTED answer instead of the most likely to be true answer is literally life-threatening in a medical context.
We see these ideas that are obviously nonsense all the time. This one has been picked apart by multiple people with industry experience already.
What these things are is essentially the venture capital version of the scam mails you get in your mailbox every day. If you make it big enough and insane enough, someone with more money than brains will think he spotted an opportunity that everyone else missed and will invest.
Why is it, you think, that 99% of these things vanish without a trace after an initial storm of publicity?
This.
My take on vibe coding is simple: Don't.
At least not the way most people understand it. I'm totally ok with having an AI do the tedious work. But only do it on stuff you could do yourself (i.e. you're just saving time). Because otherwise, you'll never be able to maintain it.
This, in general, is the whole problem: The entire "vibe coding" movement only worries about CREATING code. But in the real world, maintaining, updating, refactoring, reviewing, testing, bugfixing, etc. etc. are typically more effort than writing it in the first place.
>But in a good model, esp. a thinking model, one
>would expect it to think over which sorts of
>numbers are statistically over-chosen (birthdates,
>etc) and avoid them in giving its answers.
and even then, it doesn't affect the chance of *winning*, but rather the chance of being the *sole* winner, as opposed to having to share the price.
[there *is* another possibility, though, albeit unlikely: it could come across a flaw in the RNG that lets it avoid less likely combinations, or choose a more likely one. Again, though, this requires an RNG flaw.]
just like when it hit three digits?
>Mexico has a half peso coin, worth about 2 cents.
and a peso was like a dollar.
I recall my aunt feeling guilty about what she was paying down there when it dropped to about eight to a dollar.
And then they lopped three zeroes off to get the new peso.
I *think* this is half of those one-thousands of the prior peso . . .
After extreme inflation, small matters of rounding aren't even on the radar for what's important.
[Let alone the 27 or so zeroes lopped off in Germany {where, near the end, workers were reportedly paid twice a day, with their wives bringing wheelbarrows to collect, and rushing to spend it before it fell further! (which may be an urban legend; I've never been able to confirm it, but it's not inconsistent with the daily inflation)}. Or Yugoslavia, which lopped off 30 digits . . . ]
[cloudtrack, err, flare, verification? *REALLY*]
And of further interest, I've never seen one in the US that was a round number of cents--they all end in 9/10 of a cent. (although in years past, 4/10 was also common)
Been a while since I've flown a budget airline. On the normal flights I've taken, there's always a few people (usually older people) with paper boarding passes.
For an additional fee.
THAT, I believe, is the main part of this change. Ryan Air already doesn't even break even on the pure ticket cost. It's the horrendous extra fees that make it profitable.
Perhaps the cost of supporting that option
Which cost, exactly?
We are speaking about paper boarding passes the customers themselves print. The gates read the barcode and don't care if it's on paper or a phone screen.
So which cost, exactly?
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex
