wilg

He is obviously correct about the specific narrow statement made here and it’s so annoying everyone has to be memey mad about it like a bad reddit thread.

The models are really dumb, mainly.

I did not enjoy that there was no way for it to clean up the 18GB of models it installed after I determined it was not really usable for any real work.

In my opinion its okay for them to work on science and math problems and release the results.

They always have video, but audio until theres some kind of emergency situation and they call you.

This also makes it a lot nicer to take a call or FaceTime.

The problem is you burn that gas and put carbon into the atmosphere which warms the planet.

It did work! The point is they did a terrible job of producing the event and being clear what they were talking about and showing the product. The product, for all four people who will be able to buy it ("invite only"), seems very cool. But that is not what I was commenting on!

It was not fine.

Yes: with Siri AI when I say "Siri, good evening" it says "Good evening!" instead of setting my "Good Evening" Apple Home scene which is what it previously did. (This is a suggested scene name in Apple Home.)

> Doctors are the best example of this. They have regulatory agencies that ensure the supply of doctors is always kept artificially low hence why there always appears to be a shortage of doctor while at the same time med school has a very high barrier to entry, it's all by design.

This is like, really bad for society though?

I think attempting few-shot agentic ports of an app as an exercise and having the results not be perfect is really a referendum on thinking or using AI in coding in any particularly meaningful way.

Quite simply because you are allowed to set up international organizations by treaty.

Because nobody is being seriously coerced or forced!

Not buying it.

Those are perfect examples because those are also hyperbolic and unserious uses of the word “forced”.

I’m not sure OpenAI shouldn’t have released math papers because some guy made a wager about one of the problems that loosely socially obligated him to read material about a solution to that problem.

Well, those mentioned regressions are in a section entitled "Safe Completions for Users Under 18" and immediately after your quote they say:

> To mitigate the risk of producing disallowed responses for teens, we apply an additional classifier-based block to responses that may contain self-harm, sexual content, and gore; this mitigation is not captured in the evaluation results above and improves safe responses.

True but irrelevant to the point of it demolishing the concept under discussion of "LLM's can't reason".

You can press Tab+Enter to accept it.

They should obviously train it to avoid this like they train it not to output verbatim passages from books and whatnot.

Image generators aren't LLMs.

This is not at all a case of plagiarism.

Sure, why not. But also: embarassing.

Obviously I was referring to the post I was commenting on as a low effort anti AI post.

I'm getting tired of the constant stream of low-effort anti AI posts. ("Metaslop" if you will.)

Golf consumes more water than ALL datacenters on earth.

lmao what

Seems like it was worth $1000 to the researcher in question.