drabiega

Hah, lately I've had one particular coworker demanding in code reviews that I provide more 'detailed' MR descriptions. (All of his are clearly AI generated.)

That very much depends on the workplace. I was let go once for being 'slightly below average', because I kept foolishly spending the time to fix things in ways that didn't result in more bugs.

I've seen several varieties of this idea several times, and it always seems pretty straw-mannish to me.

No one is asserting that computers themselves should have rights. But their users certainly do. If it is legal for me, a human person, to do something inside my own brain, why would it not also be legal for me to do a rough approximation of the same thing inside my computer?

Discord's text search isn't exact, which can be a big problem sometimes. For instance, I was in a discord for a game mod recently which had questions asked about the terms 'element' and 'elemental', which were two very different topics. You simply can't narrow your search down to just one of those. Even searching for "elemental" brought up every usage of "element".

BLS calls U-3 the "official unemployment rate" I guess, but they publish it in a table with 5 other measures that count different things. I'm not entirely sure it's fair to blame them for the fact that most people just focus on that one measurement.

If I understand the pricing correctly, that seems prohibitive. The models go up to 2k tokens of input, so wouldn't that mean that it costs $.16 per output token?

AI Dungeon is a pretty great use case. I'm not sure if it'll survive this pricing, though.

Ah, that's referring to something else. By generation it means the first output string of every scenario.

IIRC I heard someone mention that OpenAI made them do that because people were trying to end-run around the GPT-3 access restrictions?

Maybe not by itself, but maybe useful in conjunction with eye tracking?

I don't understand what you are saying here. It seems to me like you would expect hunger to increase over time after eating. Thus putting the part of your fast with the highest hunger intensity into your sleep time seems considerably easier than intentionally being awake for it?

I.E: If I skip dinner earlier I am effectively adding hours of minimal hunger experience but if I skip breakfast I am adding hours of maximal hunger experience.

I have not read the study, but when I heard this on the radio the researcher specifically said that the weight loss was because of the reduction in calories.

The part that is interesting is that by instructing people to have their last meal earlier they naturally reduced their caloric intake without being instructed to do so.

That's a fair point which also occurred to me while reading the article. It is, I think, indicative of a deeper issue with using ML in these sorts of safety contexts. If the only way to really test your safety system is to actually put people in danger your whole concept may be problematic.