If you don't feel like the world needed grand scale changes at a societal level with all the global problems we're unable to solve, you haven't been paying attention. Income inequality, corporate greed, political apathy, global warming.
And you think the bullshit generators backed by the largest corporate entities in humanity who are, as we speak, causing all the issues you mention are somehow gonna solve any of this?
They’re not wrong though. The frequency with which these things still just make shit up is astonishingly bad. Very dismissive of a legitimate criticism.
It's getting better, faster than you and I and the GP are. What else matters?
You can't bullshit your way through this particular benchmark. Try it.
And yes, they're wrong. The latest/greatest models "make shit up" perhaps 5-10% as frequently as were seeing just a couple of years ago. Only someone who has deliberately decided to stop paying attention could possibly argue otherwise.
And yet I still can't trust Claude or o1 to not get the simplest of things, such as test cases (not even full on test suites, just the test cases) wrong, consistently. No amount of handholding from me or prompting or feeding it examples etc helps in the slightest, it is just consistently wrong for anything but the simplest possible examples, which takes more effort to manually verify than if I had just written it myself. I'm not even using an obscure stack or language, but especially with things that aren't Python or JS it shits the bed even worse.
I have noticed it's great in the hands of marketers and scammers, however. Real good at those "jobs", so I see why the cryptobros have now moved onto hailing LLMs as the next coming of jesus.
I still find that 'trusting' the models is a waste of time, we agree there. But I haven't had that much more luck with blindly telling a low-level programmer to go write something. The process of creating something new was, and still is, an interactive endeavor.
I do find, however, that the newer the model the fewer elementary mistakes it makes, and the better it is at figuring out what I really want. The process of getting the right answer or the working function continues to become less frustrating over time, although not always monotonically so.
o1-pro is expensive and slow, for instance, but its performance on tasks that require step-by-step reasoning is just astonishing. As long as things keep moving in that direction I'm not going to complain (much).
Well said! There's no way big tech and institutional investors are pouring billions of dollars into AI because of corporate greed. It's definitely so that they can redistribute wealth equally once AGI is achieved.
The movie War Games came out 36 years ago, so the claim that no-one was even asking themselves about the value of authentication in public services all these years seems preposterous.
Each logical line of a makefile is executed in its own shell. This means that variables cannot be set across lines and directory changes cannot be changed across lines.
Increasing the quantity demanded at a lower price sufficiently can reduce the optimal, profit maximizing price for the seller.
Your thinking of usual asymptotic behavior of idealized competitive markets, which while it has some relation to the concerns of a single seller in a real market facing real changes in ranges where the factors which dominate in the asymptotic case aren't the only important factors, it's not a perfect guide for them.
Given the evidence, it is a reasonable conclusion. Very little is ever "proved". Rather, we make conclusions based on the available evidence. If the evidence changes, we revisit our conclusions.
Whoever downvoted you, has probably never heard of the axiom: "Nothing can ever be proven true, because that means you would have to consider every possibility. The best that we can hope for is to prove something is not true by finding exceptions. After many failures at finding exceptions, we just state that some things are true until an exception is found."
reply