generic92034

Well, they can figure out the often very complex relations and mechanics of a code base and explain it back to the user in any form and from any angle. If they can do that they should be able to detect layers of meaning in texts and address the intent on all the layers. It is not such a different problem to solve.

Raising the question when AI will not be so utterly gullible anymore. If they can "understand" (whatever that means for an AI) complex code, they should be able to recognize an intent like in the mentioned example.

The temporarily embarrassed billionaires think they would do well without laws compensating at least some of the power differential.

It does not seem to be traditional Chinese music, at least. Or at least my understanding was that the major-minor tonality you can hear in the linked piece did not play a (any?) role in traditional Chinese music.

On the other hand this sounds like a job guarantee, though. And not only for the moment, as it is not the capability of the model which is insufficient.

GP jen729w was talking about that particular scenario, though. I have never claimed that would be an issue for everyone. But it will be an issue for a lot of people, if the crash is hard and recovery is slow.

Because if you can no longer pay your rent from your pension portfolio, AI capabilities matter much less to you.

“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

Then you somehow still need to get rid of the working man, though...

Looking at the age structure of the Chinese population I have doubts that it will be "their century".

> but more importantly. it’s not my problem.

But it absolutely is! Those people can and do vote.

What is sane about that, if they already own more than they could ever reasonably spend for their enjoyment?

The incentives have to change. Any breach regarding PID should have fines as a percentage of revenue of the company. Any breach intentionally covered up and found out later by a third party should mean jail time for the C level. Yes, I know it is hard to make such laws "foolproof". And yes, in the current political and economical climate it will not happen anyway.

The doll never learns, though.

> The minimum return policy by law in EU is 14 days.

I do not think that is true for stuff being bought directly in a physical store. The policy is for online purchases.

Again, I was not talking about current LLMs. The statement was made without any limit regarding time. Who knows how far LLMs can get, in the end?

Again, my issue with the statement is not about current LLMs. Who knows if LLMs cannot be a major component of AGI, or even ASI systems. Then the capability to do whatever humans can do is part of the definition.

> LLMs will never be able

That is a very bold claim, unless you meant "current LLMs".

I can still use chatgpt without an account. Maybe it will be a limited model, but for discussing/analyzing some topics it still does fine, most of the time. You just cannot code with it.

While I mostly agree, was that really different with googling certain topics, before modern AI?

My point was rather that it is an asymmetric situation from an investment perspective. I am not taking any sides regarding bubble or not.

> You could make the converse argument, too: why don't you borrow and leverage and bet and short these AI companies, if you so vehemently think it's a bubble?

Because going long and going short are very different. For successfully shorting something you need to have a pretty precise estimate of when the crash will happen. Being a comparatively short time off can cost you everything.

> Who is building the things and spaces people in 2426 will marvel at?

Maybe they do not believe that there will be a human civilization in 2426.

> when Salesforce invented the CRM for example

Huh? If that was not a joke, here is the history of CRM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_manageme...

You know, they could also be used to keep invaders out of Ukraine. But for sure, that is not what billionaires have in mind for them.

Good for the employees they are organized in a union. This is not so typical for IT workers, at least. Meaning, in most other settings the clown show can continue for quite a while.

Why worry if you can have an army of AI controlled combat robo dogs and drones? /s

Now, times are becoming "interesting" again, unfortunately.

Still, I guess if you would care you could let the LLM perform loops with pangram tests, changing the text till it scores well enough.

"As long as" does a lot of work here, considering language barriers and (in my experience) generally less knowledge in off-shored centers.

Arguably Sudan is a different caravan. And the totally destitute in most industrialized countries are a small minority. So, currently people can keep the mindset that they still have a chance. Once that illusion shatters, expect violence (which might not achieve anything).