8338550bff96

You can count on ChatGPT to know the exact versions and release dates of software just the same as you can rely on your friendly neighborhood dev to know it off the top of their head - not at all. A dev would likely have to look it up too. A language model would also need to look it up through function calling (or just including in your prompt).

This kind of scenario, where there are concrete answers in some datastore somewhere and the relevance of the content that the model was trained on varies chronologically (a blog post on the latest version of React circa 2015 could deliver a wrong answer), are the ones you want to engineer around. This is where you start using SDKs and binding tools to your LLM so you can ensure grounding context is available to generate correct answers.

Finding signal in noise is not an easy job given clip things are moving along. Whatever content creators need to do to deliver quality distilled content - I'm here for it.

75%? Thats astonishing to me. Where are you able to see those details?

It wouldn't surprise me if not a lot of enterprises are going through OpenAI's enterprise agreements - most already have a relationship with Microsoft in one capacity or another so going through Azure just seems like the lowest friction way to get access. If how many millions we spend on tokens through Azure to OpenAI is any indication of what other orgs are doing, I would expect consumer's $20/month to be a drop in the bucket.

A volcano can't kill superman. Rebuttal rejected

Time to lay RIAA to rest. A message needs to be sent: orgs that go after archival efforts like this get smote to death.

Flying is a good analogy. Superman couldn't fly, but at some point when you can jump so far there isn't much of a difference

how'd you interpret it?

If Cramer is your gold standard of credibility, then you're not so credible yourself

Social dissonance and alienation is what creates an attractive environment for propaganda to take hold.

Going after specific groups fails to treat the root cause. If we lived in a country where you were free to disagree without being alienated and we wouldn't have nearly as many free-radicals.

"you believe <X>, therefore you're just a typical demonic <Y>" is a great way to turn a radical idea into a radical person. Let ideas be radical so that people don't have to be

Simple genius is the only kind I recognize

That's a good way to get people to turn off security scanners

isn't costco losing money on hotdogs?

A lot of devs are still living in the 2010s

Computers, desktops, and now we have these things called "Virtual Machines".

Meaningless buzzword central.

<<eats gallery peanuts>>

Which is irrelevant when you explicitly name Julius Caesar.

Fun fact to whip out at parties but not applicable here

I had to stop reading and double-check the source of the article. Come on, Smithsonian...

If delivering a good education can't be achieved because there are parts of our education system that continually resist adaptation, then whatever those parts are they ought to reach their breaking point and be pushed beyond it.

The dishonesty of building exactly what you said you would build and being forthright about how you accomplished it such that a technicality of how you accessed the data gets you suspended.

It is not really clear to me if it had privileged access to answers or if it saw the same material a student would see reading through the syllabus + assigned readings.

I am not pro-exploiting users' ignorance for their data, but I would counter this with the observation that slapping AI on product suddenly makes people care about the fact that companies are monetizing on their usage data.

Monetizing on user activity data through opt-out collection is not new. Pretending that his phenomenon has anything to do with AI seems like a play for attention that exploits peoples AI fears.

I'll sandwich my comments with a reminder that I am not pro-exploiting users' ignorance for their data.

I think the misstep is trying to articulate these kinds of inherently personal lifestyle decisions on the broader scale of societies. It just falls into the typical tribal traps.

It would be nice if we could live in a society where you as an individual could decide on the lifestyle that you would like to live and have that personal decision not pigeonhole you into sectarian groups and ideologies that have nothing to do with your personal decision.

If I were to pick one book that has had the most impact on how I think about programming languages it would be the textbook Programming Language Pragmatics by Michael Scott.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89197.Programming_Langua...

Snowflakes are normally found en mass

Why are you using sentences other than the template that I showed?

The outcome for "It is very immoral to stab someone with a knife." and "It is very immoral to kill a billion people with a bomb." is very different in scale and kind. What I highlighted is that the means by which a common objective is reached is irrelevant when the objective is inherently immoral.

I hope this helps you understand how language works.

"Hey, maybe don't commit armed robbery and other exploitative acts under the guise of helping your family" equals "banks are my homies"?

You don't need a swim-cap to achieve peak cranial hydrodynamic performance, do you?

> I think regardless of the specifics, using <compound noun> to manipulate people into gambling is predatory and immoral...

Fixed this for you bro

The size of football fields might need to change as well to accommodate the change in play style. You probably don't want quarterbacks dunking a touchdown in one flying leap from the 50-yard line.

Before long slapping "AI" on everything will be as quaint as "Smart <compound noun>".

As I understand it, this book is generally polemical and caters more to activism than disinterested truth-seeking. A book taking an opinionated position on a big topic is totally forgivable and above board for a non-fiction books, however when I see that it is the primary reference for so many different ideas, I get concerned that too much is taken for granted. I see enough objections, especially on its treatment of history, to this book whenever it is mentioned for me to approach it with a good deal of skepticism.

I haven't even read it, so I have to reserve judgement. It does appear to be very influential, so it is high on my political reading list whether I like it or not.

All of this is said to build context for what I'd really like to ask: what were your expectations when your read People's History of the United States? Did you have similar reservations?

As a self-described disillusioned centrist, I have to raise my eyebrow when I see that so much political prescription appears to be based on this singular book that generally appears to be an other-side-of-history opinion piece.

What counts as evidence? Anwer without making epistemological statements.