michaericalribo

Get a whole $25-$95!

https://clarksonlawfirm.com/lp/apple-intelligence-false-adve...

I've been clamoring for this for a year now, but I'm so accustomed to the web interface I think I'll wait until it's matured:

- Can't adjust font display size

- Can't open multiple chat windows at once

- Can't Cmd+F within a chat to find content

Hoping it succeeds, waiting until it does.

Can confirm, it was an Encyclopedia Brown book and it was World War One vs the Great War that gave away the sword as a counterfeit!

Wow, 6.5 hours is a long time to do anything that requires focus, much less a spacewalk…!

When will Gemini release a desktop app and enable MCP and coding agents??

So, no third party source.

First skiing, now this -- you'd think Apple would get their act together and come up with a better solution than "turn it off"

> A realistic set of mathematical equations to describe fern leaf or cauliflower curd development is needed

I wish the author had derived these equations -- something like the book The Geometry of Pasta

https://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Pasta-Caz-Hildebrand/dp/1594...

Science is hard, and that's why science rarely gives black-and-white answers. This study is not the one final word on the matter. But that doesn't mean it's not still useful.

Science is done based on the evidence that is found, and this counts as some evidence. Does it answer every question? Of course not. Does it help improve our understanding of the occurrence of it? Yes.

Correlation is not causation, but where there's smoke, there's often a fire—as these findings continue to be validated (and there have been other studies that find similar links), it becomes more and more relevant to understand why there is such a correlation—to find a causal mechanism, if it exists, or to confirm that it's just spurious correlation.

The author notes that in the data analysis, ChatGPT hallucinates an incorrect fact…there seems like such a huge gulf between “ChatGPT can do 90% of a data analysis but some might be wrong” and “ChatGPT can do data analysis with great accuracy.”

It’s a difference between proof of concept and production ready software. Maybe these shortcomings can be addressed in a larger software ecosystem, but ChatGPT still feels pretty far from properly replacing human work—it’s just not reliable enough

Is there any scientific evidence to support the value of AI therapy?

I did a PhD in statistics, and spent a lot of that time doing applied modeling.

My perspective is that MCMC is one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century. There are pros and cons to different samplers, lots of caveats, concerns over convergence—all valid. Still, MCMC opens up a whole new world of model building, letting you easily try a whole slew of models. It provides flexibility, even creativity. As a concept it’s clever. As a technical achievement it’s amazing.

Assuming it didn’t just start hallucinating plausible sounding phrases

> CRISPE Prompt Framework:

But what is the R??

I'm personally not a fan of gatekeeping. And your example is a false equivalency -- no one is claiming to be a professional engineer here.

> Many people are using it as a digital secretary or assistant

This is the most exciting development to me -- a personal assistant that can keep track of my schedule, find interesting articles, and automate other logistical tasks throughout my day.

It's possible to achieve some of this functionality via prompt engineering, but I'm looking forward to the more structured applications that use GPT for summarization and natural language communication, sitting on top of engineered systems.

This is a great illustration of the risks of LLMs. As a user, if I am asking this question to a search engine, I definitely do not expect to need to fact-check the results. That's the whole reason to use the search engine in the first place!

We're about to enter a dark ages of crappy AI products that are touted as game changing, outcompeting each other to be the best chatbot that can compose haiku about how grapes turn into raisins.

This is like encryption: the cat is out of the bag and there's no getting it back in. As computing power increases, control of LLMs will be democratized / made widely available, and no amount of regulation will stop that.

More to the point, it will be incredibly difficult to reset the gen pop's impression of AGI. More structure to LLMs may give more reliability, but in the meantime, I have no doubt LLMs will wreak havoc in the world. We're in a mess it's not clear can be cleaned up.

Imagine a model that decides on its own to assert the Fifth on your behalf. But now imagine that AI decides to lock you out of your own system...

These privacy considerations are highest-priority for any extended roll-out of LLM-based products.

Privacy on the side of model servers would be good. Open source models that can be run locally would be better.

These "augmented intelligence" applications are so exciting to me. I'm not as interested in autonomous artificial intelligence. Computers are tools to make my life easier, not meant to lead their own lives!

There's a big up-front cost of building a notes database for this application, but it illustrates the point nicely: encode a bunch of data ("memories"), and use an AI like GPT to retrieve information ("remembering"). It's not a fundamentally different process from what we do already, but it replaces the need for me to spend time on an automatable task.

I'm excited to see what humans spend our time doing once we've offloaded the boring dirty work to AIs.

This raises huge red flags for privacy. Presumably OpenAI keeps full logs of every interaction with ChatGPT / GPT-3, but this isn't self-evident when you're using them. And it feels intimate--it feels like you're talking to a person--and that builds trust. To say nothing of applications like therapy, or personal coaching...

This makes me feel that open-source LLMs that can be estimated efficiently, and run on local hardware, is an urgent need. Otherwise we will live in a cyberpunk dystopia with a centralized company that knows everything about you.

With the downside that if you ask it to include iron nails in the recipe, it will gladly do so :)

Seems like anti-tracking by Apple had a tangible impact on their business -- revenue down from last year.

Given the published true and false positive rates, it's clear that the true positives do not "vastly outnumber" false positives.

Plagiarism is easier to verify, because you can directly compare with the plagiarized source material

I foresee a dystopian education outcome:

1. Classifiers like this are used to flag possible AI-generated text

2. Non-technical users (teachers) treat this like a 100% certainty

3. Students pay the price.

Especially with a true positive rate of only 26% and a false positive rate of 9%, this seems next to useless.

This is such good advice. You can’t learn empathy from a place of self-centeredness[1]; it has to be genuine.

I don’t ask the doctor’s administrative assistant about their day in order to get preferential treatment, that’s just a perk that sometimes comes with it. I try to come from a place of genuine interest in others, even though that can be hard to do.

[1] I don’t mean this as a dig or even a negative, I’m just referring to where your focus is in a given situation. Are you focused on yourself, or others?

It still has a place, but with precise targeting at specific problems. Generalized solutions that prioritize accuracy over all else may be successful at a wider variety of tasks, but there will always be a role for statistical analysis and modeling that can achieve sufficient accuracy to be useful.

I think you just got what you paid for.