That said, my friend with the most tattoos, basically every part of his body, arms, legs. Maybe his face and head don't have tattoos. When I told him I was thinking about getting one he told me "don't do it".
A heavily tattooed acquaintance told me the same thing when I was younger, and now that I've got several of my own I understand what he meant by it. He could tell my "thinking about getting one" was superficial, which is not a great starting point for getting inked. If you really want a tattoo you're going to get it regardless of any advice, so by telling me not to get one, he was trying to save me from what was (back then) potentially a bad decision.
Something I want is a sandboxed place to run USER scripts in game. I trust the game's creators to not hack my machine with their DSL (else I wouldn't be running their game). I don't trust random drive by game mod to the same level. I'd love not to have to trust user additions, but currently I do have to trust them or go without.
I run a few games that takes C# plugins. The games have a big warning that they aren't doing anything to prevent my machine getting hacked, personal files uploaded to random servers, etc....
Google is fighting for it's life. I'm not saying that excuses things but it puts them in context. IIRC, 60% of google's profit is ads on search. Chat GPT like results remove much of the need for "search". I find myself more and more trying to find an answer on Google, not finding it, asking ChatGPT, getting an answer. And I'm NOT suggesting Google search sucks. It might but that's not my point.
I recently need to find some details of hardware implementations for a feature. I used Google to find specs for this hardware. The specs were hard to read or didn't explain things as I needed. So I asked ChatGPT and it gave me what I needed. It first regurgitated info from the specs but I was able to ask it to explain pieces in more detail and it was great! At what point do I just stop using Google search to find an answer?
Or course AI answers have their issues. ATM I wouldn't search for reviews of some new video game or movie on ChatGPT. I also wouldn't search for product reviews. Even though it will happily spew out recommendations they'll be old at best. Maybe that will get fixed but it will have all the same issues as search and more. People will write their SEO type techniques to try to get the AI to surface their product just like they try to get them to the top of search results. I guess we'll need a new name. ARO (AI Results Optimization). Searching for products at least I get the illusion of lots of various opinions. With ChatGPT I just get the bot's one opinion.
Anyway, the point is, Google has to do something. Too late and everyone will switch. Which pushes them into too soon and hence the issues we're seeing.
I hope either the information you needed was just personal curiosity or that you verified with sources what ChatGPT was reporting. The hallucination problem is still terrible with no real solutions from OpenAI apart from "we're working on it."
IMHO, fully cosigning that google search has gotten worse and the AI shit is only going to make that even worse, using ChatGPT as a replacement feels crazy to me. Like yeah, Google gets it wrong sometimes, sure, but ChatGPT just makes shit up. Is a dumbass better or worse than a confident liar? Guess that's up to the user to decide.
False information problem is terrible as well on the internet. And if I were to guess based on usage, GPT generates an order of magnitude less error than a random reddit or stackoverflow or quora answer.
Reading posts like this I'm reminded of the teachers who told me not to cite wikipedia because it's not reliable who 20 years later are spouting whatever right wing nonsense is the flavour of the month on facebook.
Close enough is good enough. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to just not be catastrophically wrong.
But many chatgpt hallucinations are catastrophically wrong. For example when querying for things related to advanced scientific subjects in physics and medicine for starters from my own experience.
I really want to give this a pass but the worst thing is that you can't really see where it turns from correct to incorrect, like you would usually pick up with a human teacher or peer when you start to get a feeling they really don't know what they're talking about. ChatGPT will gladly keep hallucinating references and reasonings that sound superficially plausible until you look them up, because that's what it's trained to output..
If they could just find a way to cut it off when it starts to become too unsure, it would be a big improvement.
I love that in our current moment if you will, that Luddism has been reduced to a binary, with zero nuance whatsoever. Either you are FOR every introduction of technology, every automation, every convenience, every new product regardless of it's demonstrated, documented deleterious effects, or you're an extremist boomer who refuses to learn email. There's no in-between at all.
I recall a time when a popular joke amongst tech people was that a tech enthusiast was someone who had every new smart home accessory and every new gadget and used them all, and a tech engineer was someone who had nothing more advanced in his house than a laser printer and he kept a gun in the same room in case it ever made a noise he didn't recognize.
I guess we're just more enthusiastic than we used to be. I like my smart switches, but I don't like the notion of all human knowledge being only accessible to me through the filter of a word generator. If that makes me a Luddite, then Luddite I am.
> I recently need to find some details of hardware implementations for a feature. I used Google to find specs for this hardware. The specs were hard to read or didn't explain things as I needed. So I asked ChatGPT and it gave me what I needed. It first regurgitated info from the specs but I was able to ask it to explain pieces in more detail and it was great! At what point do I just stop using Google search to find an answer?
But was it accurate ? Chat GPT just provided you with the statistically most likely specs. If the actual doc for this hardware is lacking, this is 100% hallucinations.
My experience is that ChatGPT is simply bullshitting you (sometime accurately), Google is drowning the info in 20 links (where they try to make you buy "Hardware you're searching for"), and you have to go to DuckDuckGo to find the thing you're actually searching for.
I wonder how much of that pattern (Google won't give me shit, better ask GPT) is Google's own fault. Their search engine has been degraded so much that, if their LLM results are based on its search, it won't match the specificity of GPT's results. They seem to have pushed people into ChatGPT's arms. If they had consistent search services, I think less people would flock to GPT, which would give them more room to develop their own LLMs properly instead of just rushing crap like Bard or Gemini's inconsistent stuff. The gamble to rush things means you run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot and letting the other runners catch up
Honestly I see a ton more ads on YouTube than search as I use Kagi but I can't avoid YouTube. I'm sure they have other future revenue streams for ad placement.
While I loved the look of Neverhood, I personally never thought it was a good "game". The puzzles were obscure, random, etc. I almost feel like they should have just opted to make a short movie or if it adds up to 80+ mins then a full length movie, instead of a game.
I'd argue this is a design bug. Extracting into the current directory should either not be possible or be the exception (tar xvfz --current-directory) and not singling out tar here, unzip, pkunzip, etc all have this issue and have all cause people data loss and worse because if this default unsafe behavior
Unless there is only one folder in the archive, and it's not overwriting anything, then it should be extracted into the current directory so you don't get nested dupes
That might be true but I've using arc, tar, pkzip since the 80s and even then I lost work and had to clean up on floppy disks because of this issue. I suppose the prudent thing is to list the files before decompressing
To each their own. I personally didn't get Scarlett Johansson vibes from the voice on the GPT-4o demo (https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/) even though I'm a huge fan of hers (loved Her, loved Jojo Rabbit, even loved Lucy, and many many others) and have watched those and others multiple times. I'd even say I have a bit of a celebrity crush.
To me it's about as close to her voice as saying "It's a woman's voice". Not to say all women sound alike but the sound I heard from that video above could maybe best be described and "generic peppy female American spokesperson voice"
Even listening to it now with the suggestion that it might sound like her I don't personally hear Scarlett Johansson's voice from the demo.
There may be some damming proof where they find they sampled her specifically but saying they negotiated and didn't come to an agreement is not proof that it's supposed to be her voice. Again, to me it just sounds like a generic voice. I've used the the version before GPT-4o and I never got the vibe it was Scarlett Johansson.
I did get the "Her" vibe but only because I was talking to a computer with a female voice and it was easy to imagine that something like "Her" was in the near future. I also imagined or wished that it was Majel Barrett from ST:TNG, if only because the computer on ST:TNG gave short and useful answers where as ChatGPT always gives long-winded repetitive annoying answers
Ask to use Alice's likeness in my product, get declined.
Ask again.
Debut product, users say "this sounds a lot like Alice".
The day my product releases, I make a public statement referencing a movie Alice starred in.
When Alice asks how I made my product, I delete all access to the product.
That said, my friend with the most tattoos, basically every part of his body, arms, legs. Maybe his face and head don't have tattoos. When I told him I was thinking about getting one he told me "don't do it".
reply