drpixie

Or more to the point, it's surprising that humans can make sense of LLM text, quite as much as they do?

Because the sense and the semantics is entirely within the human.

It's disappointing that this article won't rate higher here, as it's spot on and most points very difficult to refute. Disappointing, but given the audience, unsurprising.

Do the non-connected TVs bitch about lack of connection and desperately prompt you to upgrade?

>> because semantics is not involved

And there, in five words, is the problem/feature/definition of AI.

And NEVER use an email address on some domain/service for administration of that domain/service.

Availability of an OpenWrt port is the first thing I check when looking for network hardware :)

Must be the shortest ever NYT article ... "No."

I don't suppose it includes mindful discussion of how easily humans are fooled... and how desperately some people want to fool themselves.

The really interesting thing about "AI" is it has shown how easily we are fooled, and how willing we are to be fooled.

There's some great research areas opened up by "AI". But it's research into people, not "AI". We should be looking into how human vision works, given that we take obviously generated images to be real. And how we grant intention to text which clearly has no intention.

On Bing!!!! Sorry, in the back of my mind, bing is that very sad MS search that was terrible at everything :) And it gave you something useful - astonishing.

Or, it's impressive that, amongst the millions of hacks it has copied from various chat sites, were some that worked in this case.

The scale of these things is impressive, but the mechanism is not much better than brute force.

Hi author, where did the aircraft and engine data come from?

That data looks to be rather arbitrary. Real aircraft performance is hugely dependent on aircraft weight, altitude, and ambient (air) temperature. And engine performance is very dependent on air temperature and airspeed. So your table of cruise/climb speeds etc might produce interesting results but the results are not going to be at all realistic.

To give you an idea of data complexity, all airliners come with hundreds or thousands of pages of closely printed tables giving performance at specified weight, temperature, altitude, etc.

> if the value is in the prompt, give me that prompt – I have access to a model too.

Absolutely. I don't want to waste my time reading pages of (literally) mindless slop.

If you can't be bothered writing well, just write points. Don't use "AI" to expand your points into slop. I might read your points, and will judge you on your lack of time and/or care. But I will despise your slop.

That is how the PR reads, but is not at all what happened.

A team of highly trained and skilled people used an AI tool, through many many instructions (prompts), to produce a specific mathematical theorem. The tool is impressive, the result (possibly/probably) interesting, but the PR skips the vital role of the humans (for the usual PR reasons).