Downvotes are hidden now. I'm not sure they actually have enough information to determine video quality anymore. Its all about gaming the algorithm's "engagement" metrics. No one cares if you enjoyed yourself any longer.
Its true, though. Pick half a dozen news articles from 2+ years ago, then find the current state of information we have on what happened. Its pretty obvious that journalists lie, embellish, misrepresent what their sources tell them, or simply never did basic fact-checking. I realized this a long time ago and its only gotten worse. No one wants to pay for news, and they certainly don't want to pay for news that consistently causes them cognitive dissonance on top of being boring. But thats exactly what the world is: uncomfortable and technical.
I think more likely I just upgraded "jammed" to destroyed - its not like I was imagining an explosion, just overwhelming its optical sensors. Problem is I remember some diplomatic back and forth, too.
So maybe I was misremembering, but I really wouldn't be surprised if a sattelite was put out of comission before, but was just not disclosed or admitted to.
While I agree with everything you've said, I also see that steady, incremental progress is being made, and that as we identify problems, we're able to fix it. I also see lots of money being thrown at this and enough people finding genuine niche uses for this that I see it continuing on. Wikipedia was trash at first, as were so many other technologies. But there was usually a way to slowly improve it over time, early adopters to keep the cash flowing, identifiable problems with conventional solutions, etc.
I'm getting superfluous search results because of recent news, but yes, this was a decent news story many years ago. The US basically said "fair enough."
I'm confused. Was the AI wrong? Are we mad that immigrants commit a particular type of fraud at higher rates? Because then we're just mad that an algorithm discovered a truth our social norms don't normally allow us to openly acknowledge.
If we're mad that the workers didn't perform a proper investigation or give people due process, then I hardly see why we need to make the predictive model the target of our blame, rather than the human beings with intent and responsibility chose not to treat people with the rights and priveleges that should be afforded to them.
But I can't understand why everyone has decided the "correct" answer to this problem is to ignore reality and then try to delude machines into acting like how we want the world to work is how it actually works.
I'm very much just predicting the next word when I talk. I don't know the grammar of the sentence and everything I will say when I start the sentence. I just start talking and try to hit the right notes and, if its a topic I've covered before, have some vague plan for the whole thing. Maybe other people's experiences are different, but when it comes to my natural language only and not my ability for reasoning or abstract thought - I am absolutely not doing anything significantly more complicated than chatGPT is doing.
The problem is people weren't wrong about the internet. In fact, they couldn't grasp the magnitude of the problem it would create, and the complete transformation it would have on media, politics, and culture.
When I tried to report a seller for a similar scam, I was told by an amazon representative that consumers can't report fraudulent sellers, only other sellers on amazon and only if they infringe on their brand. Fraud is not on its own a reportable offense. There's no button that says "report fraud." Amazon doesn't care and won't fix it.
This exceeds humans attempting to ELI5 in that it actually does a good job of sounding like its talking to a child. However, when it came to prompts of hard to understand concepts, I found it was often wrong, left out important details, and was superficial to the point of barely expressing an idea.
When your brain fudges the results of what you're seeing because of some hidden processing heuristic. If the bird were actually just colored black, then what we would see would be accurate. But its presented as if we should percieve continuous movement when we really shouldn't.
> it apologizes and responds in line with your critique
I find it will often double down, requiring me to look it up. Then when I present that, it will find some little corner case where it could be true, prompting me to look that up, too. And then it wild gaslight me, pretending it meant something else, didn't understand the question, or refuse to acknowledge it said what it said. Its an insidious and often subtle liar.
There are GOFAI ontology models that I think would actually integrate well into ChatGPT. It's basically solved the language part, but not the AI part, and so it really is more of an interface. So I guess like the OP is talking about. It just needs intelligent systems underneath to interface with.
I'd love for us to abolish tipping, but I don't really get a say in it, because these are expected wages and I can't just say "no, I want to keep my money." Its a social norm, not something we all voted on.
Seems like a strange place to lay the blame. A trainer repeatedly dialed 112 through Siri. The 112 operator heard the word "shot" in the background and called in emergency services.
People have found all sorts of ways to accidentally dial numbers before. Normally you don't blame the phone and talk about it as if it acted of its own volition. I guess that barrier of "volition" is starting to breakdown in people's minds. We expect the phone to identify our own operator error and correct it, then blame the phone for its actions in being operated.
From your own admission, they block accounts known to be abusive. I don't know how that's compatible with "don't care" and "don't investigate" - neither of which sounds like something Microsoft would plausibly tell you. What are you basing this impression on?
IMHO, the nub is great when your screen is small and you still mostly interact with the computer by typing. On large screens, you have to choose between having an extremely fiddly pointer or an infuriatingly slow one. I wouldn't mind a nub on a truely tiny computer, but nowadays something that small would have a touchscreen. I'd classify this as great for its time and an occasionally a nice, but inessential feature on a laptop today.
Seems like everyone gets hacked eventually. Like, I'm sure CircleCI had security experts they hired. I don't doubt that they took things seriously and made sure they followed best practices. But that's not good enough. You will still get hacked. What do we do about this?