Like most popular social media sites, you usually won’t see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It’s mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Sure, in the short term. I’ve switched to DDG and I’m not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they’ll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
I recognize that my intrusive thoughts are my own, but this term existing is helpful because: 1) some people incorrectly believe that thoughts imply a desired outcome, and this term helps explain and describe that this isn’t always the case and 2) it’s a meaningful and useful way of categorizing these types of thoughts for the purposes of psychology, psychiatry, understanding ourselves better, etc.
In cases like severe OCD, classifying intrusive thoughts as such could help someone understand and cope with disturbing thoughts and develop subsequent coping mechanisms. Not everyone’s the same and some terms can be helpful.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he’s dogmatic and petty but I haven’t seen a specific thing he’s been wrong about, but I’d love examples.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you’re not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
deleted by creator
I’m going to use those things as answer machines and you can’t stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn’t exist. To its credit, I said, “Are you sure about [function]?” and it said, “I’m sorry, I got confused. That function doesn’t exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources” and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don’t understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I’m ten, explain as if I’m an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don’t really agree that it’s a “parlor trick”.
I was kind of with you until saying they’re “being a fucking idiot.”
Encouraging someone to help out? Great.
Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.
Fascinating that people with stutters can be helped by practicing speaking with speech jammers.
It makes me think about how ADHD medication will make people without ADHD more distractible while it’ll help focus people with it.
John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.
Old-school AI systems from way back in the day called Expert Systems were just a crapload of IF statements. There’s never been a concrete agreed-upon definition of AI because there’s never been an agreed-upon definition of the word Intelligence.
The free version gets things wrong a bunch. It’s impressive how good GPT-4 is. Human brains are still a million times better in almost every way (they cost a few dollars of energy to operate per day, for example) but it’s really hard to believe how capable the state of the art of LLMs is until you’ve tried it.
You’re right about one thing though. Humans are able to know things, and to know when we don’t know things. Current LLMs (transformer-based architecture) simply can’t do that yet.
What matters is the signals she gave him and how he read and responded to them.
If she gave signals of “please leave me alone” then whether he’s creepy or not depends on how he responded, regardless of how he looks.
Him being a positive and personable presence near her over a stretch of time, especially if she gave signals of being in the neutral-to-positive range towards him, is fine. The most important thing is that if he eventually shot his shot - and the response was “no thank you” - that he accept this answer gracefully.
Lots of women actually prefer to meet guys through their social circle because it’s an easier way to meet guys who their friends can give their own impressions about and who are less likely to be assholes. It sounds like it turned out well here, although we’re missing a lot of information.