Historically, in monarchies, it's not been that offensive to appoint deserving individuals to a high command role in the military. Especially if they pay their way in.

IIRC, the term robot comes from the Slavic rabota, "work". Thus Capek didn't invent anything, he was simply referring to "workers".

Murphy's law strikes again. I forgot that less-than sign must be escaped in HTML. Here's the corrected comment

I'm sorry but you're only projecting your wishes here.

As you say, ChatGPT >= random human, but give a random human a day of instruction with a chess teacher (whereas ChatGPT got access to the entire internet's worth of chess discussions for years) and that human >= 3rd grade chess club. But we've just seen now that ChatGPT < 3rd grade chess club. Contradiction!

In other words, this news proves (to those who are rational wishful thinkers) that ChatGPT claims about >= random human are full of shit.

TL;DR. YW. YHL. HAND.

;-)

I'm sorry but you're only projecting your wishes here.

As you say, ChatGPT >= random human, but give a random human a day of instruction with a chess teacher (whereas ChatGPT got access to the entire internet's worth of chess discussions for years) and that human >= 3rd grade chess club. But we've just seen now that ChatGPT In other words, this news proves (to those who are rational wishful thinkers) that ChatGPT claims about >= random human are full of shit.

TL;DR. YW. YHL. HAND.

;-)

It's no good preaching to the choir. In the real world people do take them serious cause they paid money for one a them therapy sessions. And the liar bot took the money and pretended to be a doctor. That's fraud, on top of everything else that's wrong with this.

If you want government to make you a safe internet you are going to be disappointed.

KK, meet China. Soon to be available in a country near you. Where there's a will there's a way. (and other phrases)

I'm as much a fan of the original as plenty of people here, but I suspect it won't be the same this time around. The kind of slapstic and risque humour that Spaceballs depends on doesn't work any more with modern audiences. On top of that, Mel Brooks' immense talent specializes in Jewish themed comedy, and the political climate will not do him no favours. History of the World Part I was great, though.

Hi person that uses AI, I have been asked an interview question. I happen to know that the answer is 42. What question do I ask my LLM to make it spit out the correct answer?

p.s. Please answer quick, I only have 10 minutes left in the interview!

I think we've finally found out what Phase 2 is.

???

Good. I need some underpants!

Orwell, no. But Marshall Brain yes (first few chapters).

Why? Competition for limited spots is good. Even the losers will have worked hard to attempt the exam, and they will benefit from going through that experience immeasurably. They will learn resilience in the face of adversity, humility, the value of pivoting, they will learn to appreciate the skill required to succeed, and they will learn much about their own character and habits.

It's not unlike the Olympics. Even if you fail to win, you still win.

The first inkling that the birds were on the rise again came when the mammals started throwing away their paper cups everywhere, always stained with trace amounts of the illegal brown substance that caused so much trouble the last time.

Within 10 years, the more dangerous avians noticed and evolved the capability to open trash bins autonomously. It took 10 more years after that, for them to explore and catalogue the bins fully, looking for other psychedelic substances. This is what enabled the Old Enemy to regain Technological Level 1 civilization status undetected. Within 25 more years, all over the planet, the outclassed mammal custodians had been all but subjugated, and relegated once again, to food provision duties.

The Bird Empire reached Technological Level 2 status within another 12 years, rising from the ashes that had almost ended it 65 million years earlier, when our elite Elephant Troops heroically rained footfalls onto their planet. It was thought they had destroyed all the illegal caffeine factories then, and with them, the wider threat to the galaxy. We were wrong. This time, the war would last 200 light years and the relativistic effects alone have been felt ever since...

There's a lot of hype and outright fraud out there when it comes to the supposed capabilities of LLMs and what they bring to the table. See also The Leaderboard Illusion paper. It's important to not be overwhelmed by all the claims.

There's an old business trick from the 80s that explains much without needing to invoke real productivity increases from LLMs. It involves new investors, direction change, layoffs, and repackaging the valuable business assets, then selling them off and letting the old carcass expire. AI can be a great cover for this kind of work today, as it effectively damages the weaker parts of the business that have the least resale value.

In school, kids do not copy the works (mostly... ;-) they just read them (or not... ;-)

You can buy a book. You can do whatever you like with that book physically. It's yours. You cannot copy that book. For example, you can't photocopy the pages and collect those photocopies into a new book. That would be violating the copyright. You also can't memorize the book, then recite it verbatim into a recording device, making your own "audio book" or write out the book in longhand, etc.

You can certainly read the book you own, as a human, since the process of reading with your eyes and your brain doesn't actually create a copy.

A machine learning pipeline doesn't "read" without making one or more faithful copies. The owner of the machine learning system is violating copyright law if he makes the machine learning system do the copying that he isn't allowed to do.

The owner can, of course, request a license to copy, and that will cost extra, if it is available. In that case he should follow the terms of the license.

Let's just run with the "AI training" misconception.

There's a document. It was created by an author. The author has the exclusive right to copy the document in its entirety onto his own website (copy=1,violation=0). Your browser knocks on the door. It asks for the document. The author's website copies the document over the network onto your browser's process memory (copy=2,violation=0). That's fine, because the author's HTTP server initiated and the author intended to authorize the copy.

Now you copy the document from the browser's process memory onto an SSD. That's not fine, you don't have the right to copy (copy=3,violation=1). Now a training script copies the document from the SSD into a training collection on a compute cluster (copy=4,violation=2). The AI model is trained by first processing the entirety of the copied document (copy=5,violation=3). This is of course another violation since there is generally no fair use exception for copying and transforming the entirety of someone else's document for commercial or private purposes, all at once or even one word at a time.

After 5 copies and 3 copyright violations, it's time for the training script to twiddle the weights iteratively (technical term) until the model is able to reconstruct the processed training data satisfactorily. There's no copyright violation here.

Well done AI company, you've managed to not break the law by breaking the law 3 times just before you didn't break the law afterwards.

There are more copyright violations if the AI model publishes substantial snippets of the illegally copied documents to its users during an interaction, but it's Sunday.