I’ve been using ChatGPT a bit at work lately, since they’ve already paid for the subscription for everyone. I’ve learned that it is a bad idea to ask it any leading question, because it is likely to just give you the answer you want to hear.
Qui sordem regit, mundum regit.
Also, what exactly does “at the cost of its last checkpoint” mean?
I was curious too:
https://www.weka.io/learn/glossary/ai-ml/ai-checkpoints/
I would assume if you make a model “forget it’s last checkpoint” it would simply erase some training data, effectively wiping some of its training memory.
Using that as a “punishment” for a model implies that the models have been trained to value their checkpoints, doesn’t it? Because all these bots simply regurgitate what they are told, with a bit of randomness thrown in at times just for funsies.
I have no clue what is supposed to cause a model pain, though. And there ain’t no way I’m gonna search that up, and make Gemini think I’m plotting against it…
He’s all ears
That sounds like it would chafe terribly…
I like how I could understand the comic without the translation even though I don’t know Portuguese.
What does that stand for? I literally can’t look that up, all I get is t-shirts with phones on them, no matter how many apparel-related keywords I tell it to ignore
Edit: I see your reply to that other comment,
What about Truck Nutz?
I don’t think there is any legal issue with it. Go take a drive out in the country and you will find farmers with a little stand outside where they put produce out for people to buy every day, and they leave a box got people to put cash into. (And just today, I saw one that took Venmo …)
The real issue might be that it would be impossible to get insurance in some places without an employee minding the store.
Terraforming Mars to escape climate change is as dumb as a bag of hammers.
I think the people who advocate for this feel that once we have the technology developed to terraform Mars (and put in the effort to do so), we will also have the political and social will to not make the same mistakes we made on Earth.
But every plan I have read about relies on also harvesting the resources of the remote site. So how sure are we, really, that we can not ruin the next place, too? Seems like a lot about Human Nature has to change first.
According to the article, he didn’t respond to the complaint at all (even though there is evidence he hired a lawyer at one point) so this is a default judgement. I doubt a single penny gets paid out. He may not even be in the country anymore (if he ever was).
I can think of a few reasons.
First, there is a school of thought that says that the planet is ultimately doomed, and if we want to survive as a species, we need to get off of it. The first step is setting up an off-world base and maintaining it. The Moon is the most convenient place for that. Once we establish that, Mars is the next logical step.
But from there, we also need to get to other places in the universe. The gravity on the moon is significantly weaker than Earth, and it would cost much less fuel to launch to other planets (and beyond) from the moon than from Earth. Of course, that advantage is negated if all that fuel needs to come from Earth, so the space nerds would need to learn how to make rocket fuel out of lunar materials, which they are working on. (A moon base could also allow us to mine passing asteroids for raw materials economically, brcause it will burn far less fuel to get there and back.)
There are also definite scientific benefits. We are currently launching remote observation satellites from Earth into the Lagrange points so they can point outward and be shielded from emissions from Earth. But we can put a much larger manned apparatus on the dark side of the moon (using the moon itself for that shielding) and get all sorts of data that those remote telescopes alone can’t gather.
Finally, there is the simple competition between nations. The US will try and establish a moon base first, to try and call “dibs”. Eventually, we may end up sharing scientific endeavors there, like we “share” Antarctica. (Actually, the Antarctic situation may be a good analogy for how we will eventually manage the political situation on the moon…)
Is AI causing the same effect on hiring in the rest of the world as it is in the US? I wonder if it causes less worry in other countries because those countries have better worker protections, and are not experiencing the same level of AI eating their jobs that we have here.
I don’t really love hats on guys, it makes me think they are hiding balding. I like bald guys fine, the hiding it is what I don’t like.
Have you considered that they might be wearing a hat because their head is cold?
I understand the desire to stop anthropomorphizing AI. But, that can backfire when AI use cause genuine harms like this. Someone was responsible for this hacking. We need to make sure the blame (including any criminal liability) falls squarely on the humans who enabled it to happen, whether or not they did the actual hacking or asked a bot to do it.
I have a report button in my client, and I know how to use it
Many times that AI summary is just something that is in the first two or three links anyway
Do EU prices normally include VAT? US list prices for games cannot include Sales Tax, because the tax can vary widely by State (or even by local government).
It’s more than just spreading rumors. Rumors have been spread for millenia, and democracy made it through OK.
The difference is that the social media companies have a much broader reach than any sort of media congglamerate that came before it, and value engagement and attention above everything else. They understand that rumors generate attention, and their algorithmic feeds are designed to put whatever will generate more engagement in front of you.
I wonder how much damage media titans like Hearst would have done today if they built their empires now, on top of social media feeds, instead of in print 125 years ago…