quirkot

counterpoint: if I have to treat the computer like a person, what's the point of talking to a computer in the first place? Particularly when there are so many other systems that can provide answers without the runaround

Train the algorithm so that you can be the sort of product you want to see in the world

the issue brought up in the article isn't that "the algorithm is biased" but that "the algorithm causes bias". A feed could perfectly alternate between position A and position B and show no bias at all, but still select more incendiary content on topic A and drive bias towards or away from it.

Sounds a lot like Marx's theory of alienation

What? A pump and dump scheme? I am shocked I tell you, shocked

>> Building 29 separate settings with confusing and overlapping effects is less work than making a single setting of: [Local Only]?

Yes, absolutely. 29 separate overlapping settings likely match up precisely to arguments in various APIs that are used. On the other hand, what does local only even mean? No wifi? No hardwired connection? LAN only? Connection to the internet for system updates but not marketplace? Something else? All with a specified outcome that requires different implementation depending on hardware version and needs to be tweaked everytime dependencies change.

I think he's trying to differentiate himself from all the people who are not AI engineers

it took me a minute to parse that sentence also. They are saying that health tissue makes up < 100% of the body, but that microplastics can be found in a full 100% of the body (healthy and non-healthy). Therefore microplastic prevalence > healthy tissue. It's saying that there is no part of the body that isn't impacted

I'm not trying to throw shade, but the approach as described is very short sighted.

> That tiny spark of joy reminded me how much I love to build

Well, yes. That's the fun part. The hard part is the "bug fixes on that community library site you built 8 years ago, has 2k loyal users, and will never make you a dime."

This approach, as liberating as it feels, only makes the "who fixes the toilets for the utopia" problem harder.

The "G" part of AGI implies it should be able to hit all the arbitrary yard sticks

Not to be rude, but... uh... did your step mom steal your identity and use it for stuff? Minors are huge targets for that sort of stuff because generally no one is checking a 10 year old's credit

Anyone with a Bloomberg terminal able to run how much free cash the top X companies in the fortune 500 generate? The amount of capital OpenAI is describing have to be a material % of all cash generated each year over the next 5 years.

I always wonder... if there was an AGI and it's chipset gave the wrong answer, how would it ever know?

I'd never buy anything as overt as an advertisement in an AI tool. I just want to buy influence. Just coincidentally use my product as the example. Just suggest my preferred technology when asked a few % more often than my competitors. I'd never want someone to observe me pulling the strings

> In principle, good looks, oratory eloquence, a charming personality, well-connectedness, and personal wealth are not particularly useful to creating and executing government policy.

This ignores the fact that "getting people to agree to the policy" is, in fact, extremely important and highly dependent on charisma, eloquence, and the ability to identify and form influential connections. This position imagines human politics devoid of politics and humans.

"Carelessly unintrospective" becomes dishonest when you allow other people to rely on your words. Carelessly unintrospective is a tolerable interpersonal position, it is a nearly fraudulent business position.

Counterpoint: eugenics are bad.

You are saying suffering is allowable/good because eventually different people won't be able to suffer that way. That is an unethical position to hold.

Seems kinda of like a ... lonely mountain

That app update screwed me up for weeks. Feeling that sweet sweet vindication right now

Is this true?

>> Do not panic! A lot of the large LLM vocabularies are pretty huge (30k-300k tokens large)

Seems small by an order of magnitude (at least). English alone is 1+ millions words

Just wait till an aggressive lawyer finds out about this. Gonna be a lot of companies taken to the cleaner for hallucinations

Hell yeah. You accumulate $100m (or whatever the limit is) and we throw a parade for you. You get an award and your name on a plaque. You won capitalism! and you're not allowed to make another cent

Good code is the simplest code you can write to get the job done.

Getting too excited about techniques is a form of scope creep

More like fulcrums on which the world moves, amirite?

>> designed by former SpaceX & Tesla earthlings

Man, for a company that is passionate about space stuff, they sure don't seem to care at all about experiencing the night sky. tent made out of glow tubes? madness

That doesn't have anything to do with financial statements. If you're Joe's Lawn Service and someone hands you money, it goes on your balance sheet. That's how accounting works, every penny gets (you know) accounted for. Otherwise how do these "neobanks" know who they owe?

Hmmm, possibly. However you are describing an operational reality and the author was using financial reporting terms. And specifically if something like "people gave a bunch of money to what they thought was us" isn't on the balance sheet, it's a big red fraud flag

> Since the Neobank doesn’t have its own FDIC insurance and bank charter, the neobank customer’s deposits actually sit on the sponsor bank’s balance sheet

Are you saying that "neobanks" do not record the deposits as a liability? Or that they do not record the cash as assets? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are there any public "neobanks" you can point to so that we can see the financials as you describe them?

This graveyard is such a great list of fads. Reading thru it I remember how hot each on of the services google was mimicking was for a time. Ahh.. google. The world's biggest Also Ran

> Are shared computers without user separation a thing? If so, these shouldn’t be used to access web applications with sensitive information at all

Shared computers at the library are still the only way some people can access the internet. For others it's the only way they can navigate sites that aren't mobile friendly (gov't sites, etc)