ux-app

>On the other hand, they can't handle actual logic, reasoning, etc.

what is "actual reasoning"?

Another HN user posted this (https://imgur.com/HOEnxYb) response to the prompt: "is throwing a rubber duck into the ocean a effective way to communicate with my brother who is on a pirate ship"

If you weren't told that this was "just" the result of a LLM plugged into a chat bot then surely you'd conclude that, especially given the short prompt, who/whatever generated the response demonstrated some type of logic or reasoning, right?

I get the impression that this tech is more than the sum of its parts.

>Not really? I mean if you ask people to explain the 10 endings to Inside

that's just the computer doing what computers do.

the point is that humans routinely and confidently state their opinion as fact, any online forum will demonstrate that.

>as accurately as it can according to it's training data, and that is it's major flaw.

so we teach people that they need to be discerning with the way they use the tool.

Kids in elementary school are taught that generally trust runs from :

personal blog -> .com -> .org -> .gov -> .edu

At this point ChatGPT sits around the "personal blog" level of trust. As long as people use the tool with this in mind then it's just business as usual.

Computers are the ultimate appeal to authority in the style of "Computer says no".

>If you make a mistake and honestly ask ChatGPT to produce the answer to something that doesn't exist, it will happily oblige.

Just like asking people right?

We're already accepting "truths" which we don't ourselves verify. I imagine that the vast majority of people accept the answers google provides on their results page. Is this any different?

Schools teach young people to critically evaluate information sources whether they're books, TV, webpages etc. This is no different.

>However, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the fireman may be concerned about the contents of the case

this is complex "reasoning" (or whatever ChatGPT is doing. My 5 year old would struggle with the convoluted logic let alone complex language. In my layman view this is mind blowing.

>You'll notice that the question was "what did the fireman think is in the station" but Chatgpt comes up with an answer about the case because that's the token that would feature in a typical web page about theory of mind tests.

I'm not sure what you're dismissing here? At least from my point of view The "logic" that ChatGPT demonstrates here can't be dismissed with your explanation.

If anything I'm even further amazed by the example you provided!

this is mind blowing to me. can anyone with more knowledge on the topic explain how ChatGPT is demonstrating this level of what seems like genuine understanding and reasoning?

Like others I assumed that ChatGPT is gluing words together that commonly occur together.

This is way more than that.

yes, it's a great browser

the point was that Google Video sucked and wasn't able to beat YouTube.

Same story for Google+

I'll take Libraries over Frameworks every time.

I'm in Australia, there is no way for me to remove the overdraft.

>Are you saying you should empty your account constantly

This doesn't really help. When you link your bank account with PayPal the link is 2 way. I.e. PayPal can, without any input from you, transfer money out of your account. They can even do that if the account is empty. Your bank will almost certainly allow an overdraft on your account and you're still liable for the amount + overdraft fees.

I had some issues with PayPal about a year ago and a senior rep at my bank talked me through these details.

With my bank, it wasn't even possible to turn off the overdraft feature.

Bottom line is, PayPal almost always wins.

Great comment, thank you.

>breaking co-dependency habits and other boyhood things a lot of guys never manage to grow past

could you elaborate?

>Regardless, it's in your best interest to work towards a resistance.

Uninstalling the app was a 100% effective solution.

> I’ve come to believe it’s really that simple.

It's really not though. These apps are addictive! There's a real effort required to drop them and many(most?) people don't have what it takes to kick the habit.

I installed TikTok a few months ago to see what all the fuss was about. That shit is ADDICTIVE man. Even to me, a middle aged grump, who doesn't use any social media.

I had to uninstall the app a month later as I felt I was being dragged down into a endless scrolling coma.

>Food is also a basic need, but does not get any of the attention because it is a functioning market.

If bread and milk were being hoarded by speculators (not some random luxury like truffles) you'd be hearing exactly the same discussion.

The point is that rich people with vested interests are stacking the deck against newcomers.

>market-based system

The free market does not exist. Property markets around the world are being heavily distorted through favourable tax treatment and speculators.

>other than to advantage a particular section of the population at the expense of another

This is business as usual, except that the advantage almost always flows the other way.

Not all assets are equal. Shelter is a basic human need. Creating an environment that allows speculation in this asset is bad.

Progressively tax the shit out of each subsequent property owned. Prevent foreign/corporate ownership of property outside of short stay, hotel/motel type accommodation.

Make shelter an extremely unattractive asset to own.

Unfortunately, many politicians across the world are also landlords.

It might end up having the opposite effect. When all sides of an argument can bomb each other with AI generated content it could poison the well and make people less likely to believe things they see.

the data is all right there in JSON, so I guess you could add your own using JS

thanks for sharing man, some hard earned wisdom.

what if there're those pesky quantum thingamajiggies which make simulating in silicon impossible?

>his can certainly exist on a theoretical thought experiment level but not in a physical world which has finite resources.

I've always though of singularity as a sort of runaway progress scenario. Human brains run on a few hundred calories per day. I imagine if we could build an AGI, and even if it used 10,000x the power to run, we'd still be in a singularity type of new frontier. Imagine spinning up thousands of super brains at a time. I think it's hard to predict where that kind of capability would lead.

>You aren’t interested in doing that?

Only insofar as it doesn't inconvenience me. I'm not trying to convince you of my pov, it's just my personal opinion.

I think that individual action is no more than privileged westerners play acting, and its all for nothing.

Humans are, on average, vicious parasites. Half the world wants big macs and SUVs, the other half aspires to that.

Riding a bike to your local vegan grocer is a hilarious solution to a catastrophically depressing problem.

We're doomed, enjoy it while you can ;)

cool! I hope we go all self driving in my lifetime, i'd be so stoked to not have to worry about my young boys driving when they become teenagers :)

fwiw, I agree that progress has been astounding in the past 10 years... but on the other hand I really do wonder what the limits of the current approach is. After all humans don't drive by analysing 1 frame at a time, we have a model of how the world works, we anticipate, we have intuition etc...

I know the whole human flight is different to bird flight argument, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out. Exciting times :)

>How would materially closer not meet the bar for closer?

I don't have a horse in this race, but I think what the other commenter was getting at is that: if there were 10 problems that needed solving 5 years ago, and in the course of solving those 10 problems you discovered 100 more than needed solving that you weren't initially aware of, then sure you got closer to the goal, but the progress was so tiny that it's almost not relevant.

I'm personally not arguing one way or another, but that's how I read the other person's comment.

>A lot of hard work, non vehicular labor, local sourcing, and luck, providence, perseverance, and serendipity.

none of this will make any difference.

>How do you suppose humans did it prior to the invention of the coal mine and oil drill?

well, we didn't use fossil fuels, and there were far fewer of us on the planet. With 8billion fossil fuel addicted people, half of whom are yet to be raised from poverty, riding your bike will make you feel better but wont make any difference.

>Whatever you think of as a humane activity, I can find a reason why it's destroying the planet so you may as well not bother - just continue destroying the planet as you are

yes that's correct, there is nothing you can personally do that will make a measurable difference to making the planet a better place. You're wasting your time. Even collective action is probably doomed. There are just too many humans on the planet.

In 1500, the world population was 460million. That is probably a level that the planet can indefinitely sustain. We're at 8billion now and we're fatally addicted to fossil fuels. Buying local and taking a bus to work are not going to save the planet.

>But I assure you it’s entirely possible to live and have all of those goods, today, fossil-fuel free

Well I'd be curious to hear how. Even the apple in your pantry requires significant fossil fuel input.

Fertilizer: Fossil fuel based - the Haber-Bosch process is now directly responsible for sustaining 40% of the Earth’s population and is reliant on natural gas.

That's to say nothing of the transport involved in, for example, buying Avocado year round from your grocer.

That's just food though. Plastics are in literally everything. The amount of plastics, glues etc just in the pair of shoes you wear every day is unreal.

Wasn't a glib comment, I think almost everything is either produced or consumed with the help of fossil fuels.

>Music, art, books, comedy, pets, food, land, clothing, shelter.

Every one of these requires fossil fuel input to some degree.

Music: Every instrument, music player whatever is produced using plastics and fossil fules.

books: Dead trees? Fossil fuels. Kindle? Plastics from fossil fuels

food: produced and distributed using fossil fuels

clothing: produced and distributed using fossil fuels

You see where I'm going with this? It's impossible to live a fossil fuel neutral existence in a modern world

>paying individual people as a direct incentive to reduce their own carbon output

Is there anything you can spend this money on that is not produced using fossil fuels?

yeah it turned into bizzaro world for a few months, which was especially weird since we were basically Covid free for the majority of the past 2 years.