kick_in_the_dor

OP has a point. Are these type of embeddings the best way to model thought?

Got it - thanks for the correction.

PE ratio of 40 isn't bad is this market actually. Mature companies like Google/Meta are hovering around 30.

Can you explain what you mean by: "The other, just as valid solution, is to simply improve `Answer 1` and have `Corrected Answer` = `Answer 1`."

Isn't improving "Answer 1" the whole point?

Your write-up makes it sound like "Answer 1" an input but an output from the LLM?

Yep, you just described a search engine!

When he started the video with "I had the honor of having an exclusive look at it" I knew it was all marketing.

Counterargument: At the end of the day, the ones reaping corporate profits are themselves people, who should be paying their income taxes, no?

I love coming to HackerNews to see exactly this type of salt.

"Guys it's the future! Self-driving cars actually exist!"

"Fuck you, here's why this is awful"

I think you make a good point, but my guess is that e.g. your Taylor Swift example, a well-grounded model would have a low likelihood of outputting multiple consecutive answers about her being a comedian, which isn't grounded in the training data.

For your Tom Cruise example, since all those phrases are true and grounded in the training data, the technique may fire off a false positive "hallucination decision".

However, the example they give in the paper seems to be for "single-answer" questions, e.g., "What is the receptor that this very specific medication acts on?", or "Where is the Eiffel Tower located?", in which case I think this approach could be helpful. So perhaps this technique is best-suited for those single-answer applications.

"Michael... now has 30 BTC, now worth $3 million, and is waiting for the value to rise to $100,000 per coin."

What the ? You presumably go from not a millionaire to having $3,000,000, and you decide to risk it to triple it? That's some next level greed right there.

...he comments on an article where the big rich tech company hands over money to the small guy he stole the idea from

Is it bad for the human brain to receive that much radiation?

(I have no idea if magnetic field == radiation, I was just told from my ENT that doing too many CT scans can be risky)

+1. I worked remotely the past 2 years. I just RTO'd (new team) and it's life-changing when you actually want to get stuff done quickly.

This view, while understandable, I believe is misaligned.

All these companies care about is making money without getting sued for teaching people on the internet how to make pipe bombs or hallucinating medical advice that makes them sick.

> and knows how computers work down to NAND gates.

I lol'd