Can you provide a source on gpt4 image model being fake? I haven’t heard that before, though I have wondered why I haven’t heard anything about the image part and don’t have access to image processing myself.
254 karma · joined May 22, 2022
I get that gaming like that through a phone would suck compared to a high end gaming pc, but people don’t do that out of preference.
> The publication also wrote that "deteriorating street conditions around drug use," as well as "crime near the grocery store," were the cited reasons for its temporary closure.
So you’re arguing that “high theft”, while being the stated reason that the store cut its hours last October, wasn’t specifically mentioned using those exact words in this store closing, and so that’s a victory? Even tho the stated reasons were “deteriorating street conditions around drug use” and “crime near the grocery store”?
Lmao guess you showed those SF haters!
Why are you grading a chatbot on its web search result abilities instead of its answer-providing abilities? It’s like saying that horses are better than cars because the cars hurt when you sit on top with a leg down on each side.
I realize that this one project isn’t the only way to cheat in interviews, but I still think it’s naive to think that this tech will only harm what you perceive to be “bad interviews” and not affect your own preferred interviews. At the absolute minimum, it adds additional overhead to performing interviews where you have to also be aware and try to figure out if the interviewee is being coached like this.
There is nothing leetcode-specific about this cheating platform. OP just angled it that way because HN readers would lap it up that way.
Assuming someone was using this cheating platform, how would you run your interviews? Wouldn’t this screw up the actual legit interviews(whatever that is…) too?
I’ll be honest, I laughed out loud at this.
Pretty sure I read somewhere that Bing had around 1 billion searches per day BEFORE the hype of bingchat. At $7/query that makes MSFT’s $10 billion investment basically peanuts. Less than 2 days of Bings GPT usage payments. Lmao.
“Doesn’t count because no one fell for it” (as if that excuses it anyways…)
“Well actually 4900 people fell for it”
“ALL 4900 OF THOSE WERE JUST PEOPLE JOKING AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I PULLED IT OUT OF MY BUTT”
You’re stance on this is actually “I don’t believe that the CCP would try to harm the US population”. I can tell that is your stance because if it wasn’t then you are effectively saying “I believe the CCP may potentially feed the US population mental-illness-inducing content via targeted algorithms, but I don’t think it’s worth caring about and we should be mad that lawmakers are even trying to do anything about it.”
I mean, it’s not like we’re talking about something meaningless here. If you believe that there is a chance of the CCP doing something nefarious with their Golden Shares power, then that’s a pretty big deal.
It’s like you’re given a bathtub full of water and you can only use the water through a straw. It’s great if you’re thirsty, but what if you really want to take a shower…
So it’s like your modified prisoners dilemma, but also, the prisoners don’t know if there is enough for 1 person or 100 people. That changes the calculation.
> It is obvious that if those rates are low investors will look elsewhere. Startups are one of those elsewheres.
I agree.
> Now that rates are on the way up, there's no need for investors to risk their money on startups anymore. So startups no longer have one of the pre-conditions for their existence. Namely, free investor money literally pouring in and paying for all their expenses.
Again, some investors won’t spend as much of their money investing in startups. You talk as if it’s just a single on/off switch. > Such is life in the free market. Looks like the US government disrupted you.
We’re talking about the startups here. The government “disrupted” the bank. And through no fault of their own, the startups get “disrupted” as a second order effect. My main point and the reason that I felt I should respond is this sense that I get from your comment that somehow startups deserved to lose their money because they kept it at the bank. As if that was the morally just conclusion.
> I thought stuff like this was going to happen the second I saw the Fed raising interest rates to combat inflation. Looks like time proved me right.
Yes. Everyone understood that “stuff like this” would happen. I’m positive that you didn’t know that specifically SVB would go under in such fashion. Without using hindsight bias, what should a startup have done with this knowledge that “stuff like this” would happen?
> Yeah sure. A "minor implementation detail" of the bank... Honestly, this isn't even the real issue at play here.
I said “internal” not “minor”. And I mean, yes it is the real issue at play? It’s what caused them to go under? And was absolutely not something that any reasonable person would expect to know about their financial institution…
> It's really simple to me. People put their money in the bank. The bank couldn't bear to watch the pile of money just sitting there. So it "invested" the money. Then it lost the money. Then they went under. Now everybody is losing their minds and the bank is getting liquidated in an attempt to make everybody whole again.
Missing nuance that they invested in something that is seen as about the most safe thing you can invest in, but they DID mess up with the duration. Again, this is something that the bank messed up that no reasonable(non-financial industry) person could have seen coming. Sure, the bank deserves some blame for this, but the people that kept their money there could not have reasonably seen the risk.
> I'm sorry but I just don't feel any sympathy at all. It's not the first time a bank fails but people never learn not to trust them.
“Don’t trust banks”. Ok. Got it. Now what? Without using hindsight bias, what should a startup have done with $10million? Keep it under their mattress? Invest it in something more risky than treasuries?
> Nope. I say the exact same thing every single time some bank-like institution fails: we warned you.
Noted. Now what?
> When it's some crypto exchange, everybody here on HN gets a kick out of it. Now that it's some startup's bank, I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? No.
You’re comparing losing your money by gambling on something with no intrinsic value, in an unregulated market, that was built primarily as a means of subverting oversight, with keeping your money in a highly respected, highly regulated, FDIC insured bank.
That said, I hope people weren’t HAPPY that crypto HOLDERS lost their money.
That said, I don’t blame anybody for causing the bank run. If I had a reason to believe that my personal bank might not be able to give me my money if I didn’t get it out right now, there is zero chance that I would leave my money there to vanish just to avoid causing a bank run for other people. Morals break down when my life savings and livelihood are on the line.
I swear if it was called “generic bank” instead of “Silicon Valley Bank”, we wouldn’t be seeing all of these knee-jerk “good because they’re bad” responses.