drew-y

This is a huge release I’m really proud of. Please let me know if you have any questions.

> OpenAI could learn something...

Did OpenAI ever actually announce anything publicly regarding a potential windsurf acquisition?

AFAICT most of the reporting was based on rumors or leaks. But they never actually announced an acquisition. Seems like Bloomberg may have made an oopsie here.

The ChatGPT examples don't look like the new Image Gen model yet. The text on the dog collar isn't very good.

You don't think the literal nazi salute elon gave at a rally, twice, warrants any comparisons? Or that the administration flirts with annexing Canada, Greenland, and Palestine? Or that their support is driven through prejudice against migrants?

Ok.

They should. And sort of already do. Though, I wonder how difficult it is to register with some certificate issuers under a fraudulent name.

I wonder if we could add some type of verification registry. It would be nice if browser's could have a big indicator saying that this website is verified to associated with Dell inc.

How does automation reasoning actually check a response against the set of rules without using ML? Wouldn't it still need a language model to compare the response to the rule?

Awesome Job! The animations on the characters are really great and do a lot to make the game feel more alive.

Here's some ideas for improvements you could make:

- Add a button to go back to the main menu / exit the battle, I keep hitting the home button instead

- Add some sort of indicator to make it clear when an attack is charged. Also maybe some hints as to how attacks are charged in the first place.

- Consider moving the question input to inside the game instead of the alert

- Try playing around with the colors to make text easier to read.

Totally agree with the sentiment. I find the constant debates on "is AI conscious" or "can AI understand" exhausting. You can't have a sound argument when neither party even agrees on a concrete definition of consciousness or understanding.

Regarding this line:

> ChatGPT can already tell you a lot about itself (showing awareness) and will gladly walk you through its “thinking” if you ask politely.

Is it actually walking you through its thinking? Or is it walking you through an imagined line of thinking?

Regardless, your main point still stands. That a program doesn't think the same way a human does, doesn't mean it isn't "thinking".

Which is a shame. Because car travel in the US is still wildly more expensive than high-speed rail in other countries, while being a vastly inferior form of transportation.

Will this software come with perpetual maintenance updates? For how long? Do I get any new features for free? If not, is it really pay "once"?

Software is never "done". Developers need to be actively involved throughout the lifecycle of a software product. Which, to me, makes this sort of model unsustainable. I'd rather know that software I rely on won't be abandoned once the base of new customers drys up. And I don't mind paying for that.

> Easier refactoring (no wondering who all the consumers of GET /users are)

Unless your API calls are properly abstracted into function calls. No reason you can't just have a `getUsers()` function on the frontend, and then use your favorite “find all references” tool from there.

I got the opposite result. ChatGPT-3.5 won 5-0 for me. For me, LLaMa 2 gave longer answers that sometimes strayed away from the original question.

They both gave great answers overall though.

No, it doesn't. That quick-answer doesn't even mention rising tuition costs. It's only tangentially related. The existence of government backed student loans does not in itself prove they are the main cause of increased tuition.

To prove that claim, you'd need to actually demonstrate some sort of causal relationship and have data to back it up

For example, you could make the argument that:

1. Demand is the primary cause of tuition increases

2. Government backed student loans are the primary cause for the increase in demand

I believe that 1 is almost certainly the main cause of tuition cost increases. What I haven't seen any evidence for is 2. If it's true, show me the evidence. I'm open to it.

From what this article states and the research I've done, the main driver of demand is not cheap government loans. It's the labor market. The best jobs in this country require a college degree. That is what is probably driving demand, the desire to earn a liveable wage. Not the fact that you can get a cheap loan.

The article does not support this claim.

The claim: > Main cause: Government-backed student loans.

I've read the article. It discusses student loans and how they've skyrocketed, but never makes the claim that their availability is the cause. Instead, it argues a change in America's "labor profile" is to blame for the rise in demand (which, in turn, leads to higher tuition):

> Rising enrollment is also associated with a changing US labor profile; for example, manufacturing jobs were eclipsed by “business and professional services” jobs as well as healthcare, education, and retail jobs.

Going further, the author suggests we need to forgive/cancel the student loans:

> These loans should be forgiven/cancelled

To me, this implies the author does not believe federal student loans are to blame.

Common sense is often wrong. I haven't found any reliable source yet that even mentions the availability government loans as being a driving factor. Based on the limited research I've done over the last few minutes, the main drivers appear to be:

1. A large increase in demand for College. I could imagine this may be, in part, due to more accessible student loans. But it appears that many factors have come into play, and the main one is the perception that you cannot get a liveable wage in this country without a college degree. 2. Less funding from state governments 3. Increased spending in administration and student services unrelated to education.

Here are the sources I've read through so far. https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/why-is-college-... https://manhattan.institute/article/a-new-approach-for-curbi...

Got a source for that claim?

Probably not. According to OpenAI, most of its data comes from before 2021:

> GPT-4 generally lacks knowledge of events that have occurred after the vast majority of its data cuts off (September 2021)

https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

I see where you're coming from and it's clear you have strong feelings on this matter. However, I believe there might be a misunderstanding here. The goal of diversity initiatives isn't about devaluing any particular group, it's about ensuring that the opportunities and benefits are more equitably distributed across different communities.

When someone mentions a 'lack of Black representation', they're not saying that non-Black members are less valuable because of their skin color. Rather, they're highlighting that there appears to be a systemic issue preventing people of that particular race from participating or advancing in that space. By addressing these systemic issues, we can make organizations more inclusive and more representative of the broader community.

Nobody is suggesting that people are exchangeable units defined solely by their skin color. On the contrary, it's recognized that everyone is unique and has a diverse set of skills, experiences, and perspectives to contribute.

This does not mean discarding merit or reducing people to their race, but rather acknowledging that societal, cultural, and systemic barriers have created unequal access to opportunities. The ultimate goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their race, has an equal opportunity to succeed.

I'm confused. The claim is that GPT-4 has a world model, not necessarily that GPT-3.5 does not. All that tweet shows is that GPT-3.5 can also give a correct answer. How does this invalidate the author's original claim?

In the US:

> When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society[1].

However, this does not apply to areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public restrooms and (I'd assume) skirts included [2].

[1] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights [2] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/PHOTOG.pdf

In this case, I don't think segmentation is the inverse of globalization. They're both using a service that originates outside their country.

> Wasabi also noted that the way the remote URLs are configured, there are only 65,535 combinations to try, "which a computer can run through pretty quick.") - From the ars article

It's a bit confusing, but I think they what they are implying is that there is a total of 65,535 possible keys. Devices may be assigned one of those randomly. The URL must send the key and some sort of device ID. It's possible that if you know the device ID, it would only take 65,535 attempts to gain access to the stream.

What are your greener pastures?

Is there a way to move the mouse without playing a key? I am using a touchpad, so maybe it can't be done without an actual mouse.

While I respect your opinion, I'd like to offer another perspective.

Renaming a (recent) symbol of human progress is not the same thing as erasing history. That would be removing James Webb's name from the wall of NASA's former leaders, removing him from history books, etc. No one is proposing that.

Instead, it is holding our symbols to a high standard. We should pick those who truly stood out and above. There are plenty of historical figures that made great contributions to humanity at NASA. I doubt they would struggle to find an alternative.

That being said, based on the conclusions of the report, I think the name should stay.