Comment Re: How much of the science (Score 2) 33
No. ChatGPT parrots language without understanding it. That is not using language. "Using" something implies achieving a purpose by means of that thing, and ChatGPT has no purpose of its own.
No. ChatGPT parrots language without understanding it. That is not using language. "Using" something implies achieving a purpose by means of that thing, and ChatGPT has no purpose of its own.
...seems to be about four years late.
"Grand Theft Auto Forever"
"The Three Mouseketeers"
"They speak a form of english that has been manipulated by marketing people to such a degree that it's often difficult to see the reality behind those words."
In other words, Newspeak.
We can defeat the giant enemy crabs by hitting their weak points for massive damage.
I don't even know *how* to drive a stick!
"Prior art" is only a factor in patents. This ain't a patent.
No, they aren't bluffing. Detection methods are too well honed; you can't fake a test nuke (nor can you hide one). They've exploded nukes, no question. You can look up the exact dates and times they've done so.
You don't get it. It won't be fixed. There's nothing to fix. It's all working exactly the way the people creating the AI want it to be working.
So you're saying that since the problem is sometimes unavoidable, we should not do something to attempt to avoid it when it is avoidable?
Not really. To start with, as others have pointed out, once you've screwed up your body, you are almost certainly going to lay claim to limited resources to bail yourself out. There's also the fact that things wrong with your body don't necessarily *stay* in your body, notably infectious diseases.
"You have to give me lots of money. Really."
... it'll be a PC, then?
I miss my ADC mapbooks more and more.
If imprinted foil seal under cap is broken or missing when purchased, do not use.