monkeydreams

> Which brings it much closer to LLMs in this case (can an LLM talk about a topic it has never seen in training? unlikely if it cannot be derived from other training data)

This is a great experiment. Do some world building offline about Smergle the Keen finding the Hoopla of Kynashiusous. Then ask ChatGPT what reagents would have been more effective in breaking through the borantiastic door than squeeble stomach juices.

Of course we know the answer - it will either drop into a 'I have only been trained on data before blah blah blah' or 'I cannot talk about current world leaders' or 'I have not been trained on your hackneyed and unpublished romantasy saga, why don't you tell me about it?'

On the other hand, if it is aware of the general concepts of your concept, and has bridging concepts for related topics it has been trained upon, it might try to apply the general concepts to a specific but different scenario.

AI has useful features but the majority of use cases are not useful but are thrust upon us as an excuse to extract more data.

Even if the worst happens in the AI market some uses will still remain. Far fewer, I suspect, than will be demand the computational capacity of all the DCs popping up everywhere.

> LLMs are very convincing and persuasive.

The goal of LLM's, as they are marketed now, is to drive engagement and stickyness of products. A wrong answer is brushed off with a "Hey, you're right, let's try that again" - a response purposely designed to maximise the friendliness of the system and minimise the sting of a wrong answer. The fact that an LLM will not respond to the same question in the same way twice (i.e. the 'temperature' ) is because increased accuracy will not drive engagement and, therefore, increased accuracy cannot be allowed to get in the way of engagement.

Glad someone else felt the same. Discovery started well but the whole "burn" thing was... stupid. There are a million narrative devices you could use to break the ability for ships to travel via warp and they chose the least sciency of them all.

On top of this Ellison is likely to have to sell off the dried husk of Cerner in order to fuel his circular AI transactions with NVidia.

That "Smoke on the Water" MIDI tune playing through speakers at the computer shop... I cannot explain how amazing that was.

> Perhaps aesthetic - both Windows 1.0 and 2.0 were (to me at least) very ugly.

But it was amazing for those of us used to black and white/green/amber screens in DOS. You could put an image as your background. And it stayed there, lurking behind your word processor or spreadsheet, to spring back into your vision whenever you finished up your work.

I was doing tech support through the Windows 95/98/ME period and it was hell. Everything either crashed the OS or required a restart if you touched it.

When Windows 2000 rolled around and I saw how stable it was, I went out and bought it to put on my gaming PC. Another friend from work laughed at me and told me how terrible "Windows NT" was for running games until he saw how smooth Starcraft ran on it.

Yeah, Windows 95/98/ME were terrible.

The exploit of this vulnerability is so fucking trivial it defies belief. It's not a bug, it is an undocumented feature of the system.

Because I had two work calls and a child interrupt my viewing.

> It could be that simply slowing down and clearing my mind for that time would do the same.

Certainly I could not watch this in one, unbroken, session without interruption.

[flagged]

This should be a strike against MS's trustworthiness, if true. A lot of workplaces are hesitant to utilise AI models due to privacy or sensitivity concerns.

So we outsource the serial calculations to the cloud but handle branching on our cpus?

> I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.

... having said that, isn't it funny just how much gun violence there is in the one developed country that allows for open slather gun ownership. It's like, yes, you can never stop a determined person from doing violence, but by reducing the availability and power of fire arms you do stop a lot of fools from doing "mass shooter" levels of damage.