LLMs in their current form seem to me like intuitive thought, like what we use when in conversation with friends over a beer. It seems like only one part of a future AI brain, there still needs to be another system for maintaining a world model, another for background planning, etc. These + vision and hearing models to take in new info about the world and we'll have something resembling human intelligence where all that data meets
normally I'd agree about Trump's honesty, but in the debate and subsequent Harris interviews I saw a lot more deflection, misdirection, lies/mistruthes and non-answers than I did from trump. Sure trump says some wild things which are often only 50% ish true. But kamala would openly call things lies that were verifiable fact, those are lies too, and she lied a lot.
I dont want to get into a flame war, 50% is a generous number, since many times he isn’t speaking full intelligible sentences.
Trump gets a pass on absolutely outrageous things, which he creates by the second.
I feel that he is so bad, and so incessant with his content creation., that he causes an integer overflow in the audience. At that point, he is once again assessed with an average rubric.
I feel that his success here suggests that this is a strategy that will succeed globally, and that many political candidates are going to be emulating his “style”.
> I saw a lot more deflection, misdirection, lies/mistruthes and non-answers than I did from trump
Yup, it just came without the crass jokes and the mannerisms but I guess the confidence was pretty high that people would forgive her because she's just "not trump".
I think they totally bungled the messaging and stuck their head in the sand. With all the billions of campaign money, they spent most of it calling trump a fascist or orange idiot a bunch more times, hoping that's enough to bump voter numbers. There is a dose-response curve there and after some point it just doesn't yield linear results.
I think you perceived that because you expected Trump to lead the election and her to follow in his wake. She deflected to the things she wanted to talk about to a usual degree, and did not lie more than usual for core-Democrat politicians, which is not a lot. They just don't address what they don't want to talk about.
Ultimately she lost, and probably should have even more aggressively emulated him by promising things that aren't even real. Like how do you circle the promise that the war in Ukraine will be over tomorrow. I'm not making it up, that was repeated ad nauseum on the campaign trail. I guess all that matters is winning.
Yes, exactly! You can do body doubling in so many different ways. In real life you can do coffee shops, libraries, having friends over to study/work, or even just calling your mom while you do dishes. These are all technically body doubling. Online there are also options that all have slightly different styles. Key is finding what works for you. For example, focusmate is 1:1 where you meet up with a stranger and what's cool about that service is that you can log on pretty much any time of the day and find someone to work with. There are also tons of communities and creators who will host body doubling as a part of whatever else they're doing!
noticed something similar with my non airport Noise cancelling earbuds. If I had to guess, I'd say those frequencies we can't hear are still damaging our ears
imo life is filled with too much these days to handle in 2 days. the rest, administrative and maintenance required to keep things moving takes 2 full days.
I agree. I feel like I need at least a full day to just decompress from work and work on anything I want to, then another day to manage chores, house maintenance, etc. I end up feeling like I work 5 days for 1 day off.
I'd challenge the legitimacy of the claim that it's 10x safer, or even safer at all. The safety data provided isn't compelling to me, it can be games or misrepresented in various ways, as pointed out by others.
yes people would, if we had a reliable metric for safety of these systems besides engaged/disengaged. We don't, and 10x safer with the current metrics is not satisfactory.
not impressed by slow, teleoperated movements and scripted dance routines. Best they showed off was walking, and that was slow and engineers guarded the bots closely to ensure nothing went wrong.
the problem is, even if you solve 80% of cases 100% of the time, those 20% of outliers are not easy to get 100%. How should a autonomous car behave when it sees a basketball bounce across the road near a playground? Any human would assume: "there might be kids, I should slow down even if the ball isn't obstructing my path" a car isn't going to be able to make those decisions.
It depends on what you define success. Only Waymo has actual real, live robotaxis right now; Tesla's FSD very much isn't that, despite promises that it'll be here next year for the past 9 years. But in terms of "how much does it suck to drive 2 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the freeway", we've made leaps and bounds of progress since the original Darpa Grand Challenge, 20 years ago in 2004. Yeah I'd love to own a Tesla and rent it out as a robotaxi and have it earn money while I'm not using it. I'd also like a flying car. And a pony. To say that we "don't have anything even remotely close" when we have actually made progress, just because some pie-in-the-sky goal hasn't been meet, is where I take issue with. I don't know how much that last 20% will take, but if we've only made it 80% of the way, that's still not "don't have anything even remotely close" territory.
reply