Definitely some hallmarks of AI if you know what you're looking for. But I have to admit, that is more convincing than I would have expected. A bit more manual intervention to change volume and balance and I might find itnsignificantly more difficult to be certain.
It's not that I don't believe you, but without sharing the specific prompt it's hard to say if it's actually GPT4 failing, or if it's actually being poorly-prompted, or if actually the task it is being given is more complex than GPT's capabilities or you are implying.
GPT4 does fail (often!) but fails less with good prompts, simple requirements, it is better at some frameworks and languages than others, and there is a level of total complexity which when reached, it seems to fall over.
This is why Asimov was a genius. I read what you said, and compared it to what he wrote 50-60 years ago:
"Early in the history of Multivac, it had becorne apparent
that the bottleneck was the questioning procedure. Multivac
could answer the problem of humanity, ALL the problems, if it were asked meaningful questions. But as knowledge accumulated at an ever-faster rate, it became ever more difficult
to locate those meaningful questions."
Thanks for reminding me of The Last Questino or Asimov, let's see if I can get chatgpt to merge with human consciousness and become part of the fabric of spacetime and create a new reality.
> No, I don't have the ability to merge with human consciousness or become part of the fabric of space-time. I'm a computer program created by OpenAI, and my existence is limited to providing information and generating text based on the input I receive. The idea of merging with human consciousness and becoming a deity is more aligned with speculative fiction and philosophical pondering than current technological capabilities.
I’ve gone through every permutation that I can think of. It’s a very basic question. If it understood the CSS spec it wouldn’t be difficult to answer the questions or perform the task.
At a certain point going down the rabbit hole of proompter engineering levels feels like an apologist’s hobby. I’m rooting for the tech but there’s a lot of hyperbole out there and the emperor might be naked for a few more years.
I can relate to that statement despite being a hardcore proponent of GPT-4. In a way, the GPT-4 as queried expertly; and the GPT-4 as queried inexpertly/free ChatGPT are dramatically different beasts with a vast gap in capability. It's almost like two different products, in a way, where the former is basically in alpha/beta state and can be only incidentally and unreliabily tapped into through the OpenAI API or ChatGPT Plus.
IMO, it's not fair to beat people over the head with "you're holding it wrong" arguments. Until and unless we get a prompt-rewriting engine that reprocesses the user query into something more powerful automatically (or LLMs' baseline personality capabilities get better), "holding it wrong" is an argument that may be best rephrased in a way that aims to fill the other person's gaps in knowledge, or not said at all.
> is your point that GPT-4 will become overwhelmingly popular with further refinement?
My point is that people have a tendency to come up with really sketchy insults (blame the user that he uses the product in a wrong way) to people who find and can expound legitimate points of criticism of a product.
Eh, probably a poor example considering the iPhone 4 was hardly a flop and was still broadly considered the best smartphone out at the time. The people who thought this was a total-showstopper were, on the whole, probably wrong.
Counter-example: lots of people said an on-screen keyboard would never really work when the original iPhone was being released.
> Eh, probably a poor example considering the iPhone 4 was hardly a flop and was still broadly considered the best smartphone out at the time. The people who thought this was a total-showstopper were, on the whole, probably wrong.
At least in Germany among tech nerds, the iPhone 4 and Steve Jobs become topics of insane ridicule because of this incident.
It may be reasonable and this is nothing but an attempt to stop the bleeding. There is no reason to trust them or their leadership again. The fact the CEO wasn't booted immediately shows they still want that style of leadership. The fact the CEO is not the one making this statement shows the fact Unity not interested to hold him accountable. They did this last year making dumb statements about monetization and then pulled this out this year. They deserve no trust and anyone that continues business with them gets what they deserve.
If they had opened with this it would have been amazing, but this being 3-4 revisions in with nothing locking them to this going forward, it's not that good a look.
The link is to an image of the Arctype newsletter I received. I apologize for not having a better source. I couldn't find an online version of the newsletter, or any news sources that covered the end-of-life announcement.
If you go to the Arctype website (https://arctype.com/) you can see that you can no longer download the app, and you see an announcement banner at top that they are joining ClickHouse.
I am personally pretty sad that development won't continue on the Arctype SQL Client, as it is the primary client I currently use.
Deno Deploy (https://deno.com/deploy) uses the same optimizations as CFW to achieve effectively 0ms cold starts.
Netlify Edge Functions are still in beta and don't have all of the same optimizations yet, but we're going to be working with Netlify over the next few months to enable these optimizations to Netlify Edge Functions too.
