Closi

Why do human programmers need code review then if they are intelligent?

And why can’t expert programmers deploy code without testing it? Surely they should just be able to write it perfectly first time without errors if they were actually intelligent.

Although I think if you asked people 20 years ago to describe a test for something AGI would do, they would be more likely to say “writing a poem” or “making art” than “turning Xunit code to Tunit”

IMO I think if you said to someone in the 90s “well we invented something that can tell jokes, make unique art, write stories and hold engaging conversations, although we haven’t yet reached AGI because it can’t transpile code accurately - I mean it can write full applications if you give it some vague requirements, but they have to be reasonably basic, like only the sort of thing a junior dev could write in a day it can write in 20 seconds, so not AGI” they would say “of course you have invented AGI, are you insane!!!”.

LLMs to me are still a technology of pure science fiction come to life before our eyes!

You presumably understand the posters underlying point though - that the definition of 'general intelligence' does not need to be 'at above-average human level' and humans can be intelligent without being able to use a computer or do some sort of job on a VM.

This is an incredibly specific test/definition of AGI - particularly remembering that I would probably say an octopus classes as an intelligent being yet can't use outlook...

The hallucination quantity and severity is way less in new frontier models.

It's the whole answer being correct that's the important thing, and if you compare GPT 3 vs where we are today only 5 years later the progress in accuracy, knowledge and intelligence is jaw dropping.

In comp sci it’s been deterministic, but in other science disciplines (eg medicine) it’s not. Also in lots of science it looks non-deterministic until it’s not (eg medicine is theoretically deterministic, but you have to reason about it experimentally and with probabilities - doesn’t mean novel drugs aren’t technological advancements).

And while the kind of errors hasn’t changed, the quantity and severity of the errors has dropped dramatically in a relatively short span of time.

> Not denying it

Your original post did though!

Heathrow undoubtedly does the most air cargo. Sure express often comes into EMA on dedicated flights, but lots of freight comes in the hold of passenger aircraft, and that’s where Heathrow is king. The lack of passenger traffic is undoubtedly a key reason why EMA only does 1/5th of Heathrow’s air cargo, as as you have noted it’s ideally located to serve a lot of the UK.

> 99% of air cargo to the UK does NOT come to Heathrow.

Not even slightly true - Heathrow carries over 50% of air freight and is a major hub.

(https://www.heathrow.com/company/cargo)

Dragging downloads into the applications folder is 100% amazing imo!

It's because conceptually everything is supposed to be a standalone executable.

The windows alternative is random installers that put files all over your machine and then questionable uninstallers that still leave half the files discarded everywhere.

Operating on battery power is usually a pretty crucial requirement for a tablet.

As soon as I'm running virtualization to get an app to run the OS has already lost IMO.

Windows OS is bad for a tablet compared to iPadOS.

iPadOS is bad as a laptop compared to Windows.

Nobody yet has been able to fully square the two different paradigms.

This is Nuance, Microsoft acquired them in 2021 :)

Again though, verifying identity before sharing sensitive info shouldn’t be down to the LLM following its prompt - it should be enforced by design.

It looks great! Although the demo shows horrible security practices...

Clearly authentication shouldn't rely on prompt engineering.

Particularly when at the end of the demo it says "we have tested it again and now it shows that the security issue is fixed" - No it's not fixed! It's hidden! Still a gaping security hole. Clearly just a very bad example, particularly considering the context is banking.

There is but it has a 5 year notice period that can be enacted.

They could just exit using the clauses in the agreement though, like the one they have seems to have a 5 year notice clause.

I’m not saying break contracts, just saying there are usually sensible alternatives to exiting these sort of things that don’t involve just paying someone off.

You don’t have to break the deal, just serve notice.

A bit of googling on this agreement shows that there is a 5 year notice clause, so they can just serve notice now if they want. No need to pay anyone off.

(https://www.openfalklands.org.fk/leos-and-vsat-legislation-i...)

Or just allow competitors in?

Why does the monopoly need paying off? It’s risk/reward for them, if they end up loosing money on their venture why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

In addition, are there other issues causing the spike that are unrelated to the nurses?

Is there sufficient doctor cover? (There wasn’t)

Were the sinks on the unit spewing out sewage? (They were)

Was deadly bacteria found on the taps on the unit? (Yes - pseudomonas)

One additional thing of note is that it was the police and their expert witness that decided which deaths were “suspicious” vs “non suspicious”.

Without the categorisation of deaths being suspicious/non suspicious, Letby was on shift for 40% of the deaths (approximately what you would expect, she worked 35% of the week).

It was the police with the expert witness that then selected which deaths were suspicious, and they did this non-blind (ie the expert looked at the case notes, could see if Letby was on shift, and then made an evaluation on if it was suspicious or not).

After this categorisation, Letby was present at 100% of the suspicious deaths (and none of the non-suspicious deaths)

This was my thinking too - data tables can often do this.

The negative of data tables is that it massively slows down your spreadsheet, and cause some weird errors/glitches, but it’s essentially the same thing.

> It's less the app, more the business decision to tell people who had spent thousands and thousands of dollars on elaborate sound systems to go throw it all in the trash and start over, all at once.

As a Sonos purchaser, ironically product longevity was the reason I bought so much of their stuff!

While other similar systems would drop support for old devices eventually, I could be confident with Sonos that I was investing in stuff that would continue to work.

… until now! I’ve started to lose confidence. Which is a shame - I’m moving into a new house and wanting a sub, but now questioning if that’s a sensible decision given I don’t know how long my older speakers will work for now they are going glitchy. Real shame!

Dell Just Okay comes with three variants "Dell Just Okay Base", "Dell Just Okay Better" and "Dell Just Okay Premium".

Don't confuse "Dell just okay better" with "Dell this is the best we can do base".

While this criticises PowerPoint - I don't think it sufficiently outlines an alternative.

As someone that has tried to write a decision paper before rather than a PowerPoint deck, I found the main challenge was engagement (i.e. encouraging people to read it is a challenge, while a powerpoint can be walked through together).

I could present a spreadsheet, but that only addresses the financials or numbers and won't address the business context.

And if you go into a board meeting empty handed to talk about a large investment - good luck!

I think it's probably a case of horses-for-courses: Sometimes PowerPoint is a great format, other times it might not be, and like any format it can either be used well or poorly. The issue in the Columbia example wasn't PowerPoint per-se, it was that the managers weren't clear in their communication.

And while bullet points are poor in some ways - they are great in others. Distilling ideas down and making sure your list is MECE is part of clear communication and thinking.

Seems like the future - so much meaning and context is lost otherwise.

SQL is fine if you don't want to play with the data interactively - but that's the real benefit of Pivot Tables.

Things like drilling through, filtering/slicing, and then generating a graph, all in SaaS without having to run anything local.

That depends - they probably have to do whatever is in the best interests of the non-profit, so if they explain the motivations behind why they feel they are acting within their responsibility then that could probably help a defence.

IANAL though. I assume you can make a case though that says OpenAI needs to be able to raise sufficient capital to maintain its current market position, and these changes are required for that, and without maintaining market position the non-profit arm will not be able to achieve its aims.

As they have to act in the interests of the non-profit arm, I assume there must be an element of mens rea (state of mind) - the same action could probably be illegal or legal depending on why it was done.

They are more of a black box - but humans are a black box that is perhaps more studied and that we have more experience in.

Although human behavior is still weird, and highly fallable! Despite best interventions (therapy, drugs, education), sometimes they still kill each other and we aren't 100% sure why, or how to solve it.

That doesn't mean that the same level of study can't be done on AI though, and they are much easier to adjust compared to the human brain (RLHF is more effective than therapy or drugs!).