Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | headsupftw's comments login

What are you even talking about? Read the blog post one more time, please.


Sure. Tell that to the valley real estate prices.


Oh it's just partisan political bullshit you say? Enjoy your low crime rate in SF then. Just the other day Bob Lee got stabbed to death near SoMa but oh no it's just the repubs spinning the news for their gain!


The crime rate in SF is historically low, one crime occurring has nothing to do with the crime rate, facts don’t care about your feelings, sorry


The crime rate in San Francisco is statistically low because what is considered a crime in other areas is not considered a crime in San Francisco.

https://startupdreams.substack.com/p/what-the-stats-about-cr...


I am sure that SF could claim a cow is a chicken and write it into the local laws as such. However, convincing people outside of your city limits that cows are really chickens is a tad more difficult.


Why would I waste my time convincing someone who doesn’t live here that the things they believe about my city are incorrect? If you don’t like it, don’t come here.


I have been there several times recently and quite a few times in the last 30 years. What I believe about your city comes from what I have seen myself, so even if you did try to convince me you would not be successful.

You really think it’s reputation wasn’t earned?


When you can't compete, call them commie spies.


As if the made-up article does not show up in Google search results?


There is no article published on the washington post. ChatGPT fully hallucinated this


My first read of your comment was really confusing, because the article posted reporting on the invented scandal is _also_ a Washington Post article....


Two key differences:

* Google doesn't create these made-up articles.

* Google actively combats these low-quality sources.


>Google doesn't create these made-up articles.

It will soon enough, powered by Bard


You have a lot of confidence in Bard.

/s (partially?)


It doesn't combat this at all. The Internet is stuffed with keyword filled nonsense articles with long meandering intros due to their search algorithms flaws. Low quality is the standard


No one said, they are succesful or effective with it.

Otherwise you couldn't find anything legit with google and you still can, even though quality dropped indeed a lot.


At least Google gives you a second opinion. 3rd, 4th and nth opinions too.


Only if you actively keep looking for it. You can actively keep prodding chatGPT for more or counter opinions too.

So this is a good lesson in how important defaults are, most are not going to keep looking.


Not really, you get a bunch of links right there.

Also you can't "prod" ChatGPT for the truth it'll just generate plausible sounding nonsense again because that's just how it works.


Have you used chatGPT? At least bing's version? It adds links right there too.

So when you prod it, you're not doing so "for the truth" (you also don't prod "for the truth" in general...), you're getting it to generate more information and potentially relevant sources.

I just did it. I asked for an argument about x, then prompted for counter opinions about the same subject - both times different links were added.

In the end, it's up to you to validate sources provided.


You have zero context in ChatGPT though. Like even if you don’t know or have an opinion about a specific website you’ll eventually form one if you keep accessing it.

This is a huge downside of GPT. Until it starts citing it’s exact sources it can’t be a reliable tool in most cases.


The article doesn't even exist. Even if it did, Google has whole teams dedicated to filtering bad web content out of search results.


It doesn't create novel false information.


Now I’m getting confused. Are you saying it only makes derivative fake news? Rephrasing exisiting made up stories?


We call these Derivative Alternative Facts.


I think we need to be more clear than clever about this. ChatGPT seems to have made up a false claim on sexual harassment, it had no known antecedent articles discussing this, it wasn't like say Harvey Weinstein for whom there were lots of people saying he'd abused them before the court conviction. This person who was accused by chatgpt didn't have an undercurrent of claims. Right?


That's just another way of saying "that's why its price is down 20%".


Yeah but it's important to understand why it's down 20%. Some commenters are acting like this was 100% irrational panic and SVB didn't do anything wrong, it's just too bad they couldn't hold out for awhile.

What they actually did was put 40% of their deposits into a long term bond that would start paying a shit rate if interest rates went up. The invested money is borrowed from depositors so the only thing they really "own" is the interest. In order to keep depositors in a high interest environment it will require paying out some amount of interest too. But they have locked themselves in to gains at a now small interest rate.

This was a risky bet for the bank from the start and there's absolutely no way they would make the trade they did if they knew interest rates would go up, even if they also had a guarantee that there would not be a bank run. This isn't a simple liquidity crisis or even somebody trying to stay solvent until their GameStop puts pay off.


They can easily provide a feature where the employee could flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself, signaling that she is currently occupied with something else. Yes, in a Zoom setting, she doesn't have to broadcast that. But that's just cheating.


> They can easily provide a feature where the employee could flip a switch and temporarily (semi?) hide herself, signaling that she is currently occupied with something else.

That's like saying "you could just start doing something else" during an in-person meeting. We all decided that's not ok, so why would we be granted an exception in a VR setting ?


"We all decided that's not ok". And we also all decided it's ok to start doing something else in a Zoom meeting, because nobody will notice anyway?


Yes the whole point of VR is to command your entire attention the same way as if you were physically in a room. The pro-VR crowd (basically limited to anyone getting paid to work on it for Meta) thinks this will replicate the benefits of in-person work. Everyone else sees it as replicating the drawbacks of in-person work.


This top comment is odd, in the sense that the article does not talk about TikTok's privacy and/or geopolitics debacles at all, even though the title "poison pill" might lead some users who didn't read the article to think it refers to TikTok's violation of privacy, or it being created and controlled by an Internet giant based in Communist China, or something along these lines.

The "poison pill" in the title actually refers to TikTok's recommendation model that disregards (or at least de-weights) social graph, versus Facebook/Instagram's approach.


I used to play on chess.com but now I'm lichess 100%.


"One million dollars baby!"


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: