yeah but, we play games for entertainment and enjoyment.
like the time you spend with your kids, say you spend 3 hours average per day on your kid for 20 years, 21900 * 50 is $1,095,000, are you going to start calculating the ROI on spending time with your kids?
and if you rather play that video game then spending time with your kid, is it better worth the $50/hour?
Is essentially rambling from a random who just discovered prompt engineering and that there are Coursera courses about it and suckers buy it. Then rambles stuff about AI that everyone already has read. That AI will replace some jobs, but not all jobs, and human input is still needed.
Does not tell you anything useful, unless you were not familiar those two things existed.
Is there anyone on hacker news that doesn't already know this?
This idea that “the HN crowd” is an amorphous blob needs to die. Some people use the expression to mean “people like me”, others to mean “people with characteristic I don’t like”. The people who frequent HN are more diverse than the people who use that phrase think.
Stern is known to many technologists who follow the Apple world, as she has gotten exclusive interviews with the higher-ups like Craig Federighi. Those interviews have been referenced and praised by well-know Apple commentators on the Accidental Tech Podcast, Daring Fireball, and more.
I’ll say it again: the fact that you do not know her does not make her a random, it makes you one of the day’s 10000.
I agree with jqpabc123 except for one point: that it cannot 'reason' and it is not smart. I disagree with this.
The reason it cannot play well is because it has very little 'experience' (training data) with it. It's been trained on 'what the game is', it has not been trained how to win.
You can think of it a bit like driving. You can know what driving is, but it doesn't make you a driver if you've never driven before.
You can ask a genius who's never played before to play tic tac toe with you, tell it the rules, they will likely not win on the first attempt or play optimally. This doesn't mean that person isn't a genius.
You said humans are able to 'learn' to play it rapidly. So is GPT, in training mode, it can process a million games in seconds, where a human can't.
The problem here, is it simply has no experience.
If I told you every time you played tic tac toe against me, you would forget all your experience the next time we played, would you play optimally?
can process a million games in seconds, where a human can't.
A human doesn't need to. A human can apply reason and logic and at least play the game given only a few simple rules.
GPT has poor reasoning ability and doesn't comprehend the rules --- so it relies on database lookup to sorta fake it. Without this, it's kinda helpless. It clearly lacks any real comprehension --- aka "intelligence".
Using statistics, it can fabricate text that "sounds" plausible but it has no comprehension of the correctness (or lack there of) of what it produces.
But is that really the case? It's actually not just a database lookup. It is abstracting and compressing throughout the training process.
And it clearly learns certain rules about our world. It seems LLMs can reason, but reasoning is a big field and it hasn't mastered all it's forms, i.e. search future scenarios or spatial reasoning.
Such a poor article. While I agree, Windows is often better than Linux for the majority of users..
2. Software Updates:
Really? The majority of software used by the majority of users, that is available on Linux tends to update basically the same schedule as the Windows versions. Please cite actual comparisons. Otherwise why should I even bother to read the article?
4. Bugs
"The silent majority don't experience any problems."
Ask any random Windows user if they experience problems. It's such a huge problem that it's a huge selling point for alternative OSes, for Macs.
The rest of the points I mostly agree with. But those 2 points in the first 4 points, simply aren't true.
> Ask any random Windows user if they experience problems. It's such a huge problem that it's a huge selling point for alternative OSes, for Macs.
I'm a Windows user and I experience issues from bugs much less frequently using Windows than using desktop Linux distributions. I was also a Mac user for almost 10 years and have not been impacted any greater by bugs in Windows than macOS. Both are greatly better in this regard than desktop Linux.
One caveat. There was recently an article on HN proposing that ChromeOS be considered as desktop Linux. If you do so than ChromeOS would be the exception for desktop Linux. I haven't had anymore issues with bugginess from ChromeOS than Windows or macOS.
In my experience many people use Windows computers are their work. Because they don't know anything about computers, they find the somewhat different way of doing things on ChromeOS too hard to come to grips with.
My parents are 88 and 87. They retired in 1996. Their computer experience while working was accessing a logistics management system and office productivity software via a terminal connected to a Data General minicomputer system. In the early 2000s they bought Windows laptops and used varying Windows laptops until a couple of years ago when they bought Chromebooks. They have had no issues adjusting to ChromeOS.
One of a the famous study quoted in the book is how hungry judges (working before the lunch) delivery harsher sentences. The study failed to account for vastly more plausible explanations like scheduling of cases [1].
Agreed, I think so too. Bing is a shitty search engine and them forcing it to use bing's results to answer questions, makes it a really bad gpt.
But for the record, I think Bing has a much better personality than GPT. If only it wasn't limited to it's own horrible search engine. If it could use Google for example, or a better data source, it would be perfect.
I'll give you one simple reason why slowing down AI dev is not wise.
You'll slow down. America will slow down. The rest of the world won't.
You think North Korea, or China, or Russia, is going to be like "oh yeah, USA has regulations, so I'm not spend millions or billions to develop my own custom AI for my own needs." because that kid in his basement with a good idea, is not going to do the development?
Exactly. The cat is out of the back. Right now, people and companies in China, India, North & South Korea, Japan, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. are trying to replicate results (obviously with lots of variation in success rates) as fast as they can. And they are motivated by just one thing: they don't want to be outsmarted by some foreign AI. They want to get there first.
Especially China, South Korea, Japan, and India have some highly capable people. Same for Europe. Though as a European, I'm skeptical of this continent being able to pull together a coherent effort. The rest of the world is not going to be waiting for Silicon Valley to deliver them the next version of chat gpt and figure out the least offensive level of wokeness.
Companies across the world are doing the R&D and they'll be shipping whatever they have to get a piece of the market. And not all of those companies and countries are going to be very interested in ethics.
This technology is hugely relevant across essentially all industry sectors with a potential to help knowledge workers in R&D, technological sectors, law, medicine. And of course the defense industry. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean other people won't go there. They will.
This is technology with an obvious potential for weaponization. It's going to be a pretty bad time to be defenseless against that. I don't think it will take long for this stuff to start having some real world impact in conflicts across the world.
So, there's a sense of urgency here in not giving away a head start and trying to keep up. Spinning your wheels for a year or so is just not going to be helpful. Another argument here is that some AI researchers might be recruited away. A lot of them are foreigners and their home countries might come calling.
Why shouldn’t we slow down? What’s the threat to America from slowing down? Things are getting pretty rough with the constant grind. Maybe it would be good for America to slow down a bit. AI isn’t going to help the average American, just those who want to replace the average American with a computer.
If the US gives other countries an ample head start to establish the major AI companies and doesn't compete, it is unlikely that it's GDP will support as good a standard of living in the future.
I mean, by this logic only the single leading AI country will have any decent standard of living.
But if you believe that many counties will have a decent standard of living/gdp growth, then it stands to reason that not being first or best shouldn’t matter too much.
The US wasn’t first with cell phones and that doesn’t seem to hav mattered too much no matter how u Iquitos they are.
A country like the USA can always catch up if they decide they want to
I don't buy that at all. But even if it's accurate, it feels a little like "we have to burn the village in order to save it".
If barreling forward full steam brings on serious problems, that would harm our standard of living as well. I'm not sure I'm OK with letting other people roll the dice on my future to that degree.
The advances that AI will give us will help cure diseases, make energy plentiful, make huge advances in stopping climate change, and plenty of other things that will help save millions of lives. People are literally dying until we make these advances.
Those things will still be there in 6 months. Millions more will be displaced and the economy in a shambles. The network can't take the upset. We should figure it out and not just rush headlong without thinking.
Pause, not stop. Think before we act. The consequences are real.
8.8 million people a year die from carbon emissions. 6 months of deaths is more than 4 million people. If we can transition to clean energy 6 months sooner we'll save millions of lives.
> People who know what they’re talking about …listen
You really want to make that argument? And fear-mongering over death, of course.
You’re failing to see that what you’re asking for is one of many paths to speeding this up far worse than what you claim to fear. (Or you know it, and you want it, but I won’t speculate down that rabbit hole.)
You, like so many of “your scientists,” are trying to sweep a problem under a rug, rather than fix it. That includes those that think you can fight bias with bias.
The experts fucked up repeatedly, and want all those without the funding to not take any risks. Because corporations and overpaid “researchers” are bad at making decisions and promise to do the same.
It takes a lot of effort just to keep existing industrial robots working. They require frequent preventative maintenance and still break down occasionally. The idea of self replicating "robots with guns" is just ludicrous. Where would they even get the necessary parts? You must be another programmer who watches too many sci-fi movies and has no clue about how the manufacturing and resource extraction industries operate in the real world.
The military-industrial complex has been building automated weapons systems for years. So what.
You haven't provided any scientific evidence that it's possible for robots to manufacture themselves outside of human control. Just a lot of hand waving nonsense. Go talk to engineers who actually work on manufacturing complex mechanical products and they'll laugh at your naivety.
like the time you spend with your kids, say you spend 3 hours average per day on your kid for 20 years, 21900 * 50 is $1,095,000, are you going to start calculating the ROI on spending time with your kids?
and if you rather play that video game then spending time with your kid, is it better worth the $50/hour?