So…their takeaway was that the value of the data is worth the awful publicity?
So…their takeaway was that the value of the data is worth the awful publicity?
I keep forgetting that that’s an option
As you can see, they never will. You must seize the wig.
The problem with hearing when a note isn’t right is that by the time you hear it you’ve already played it…
As someone who could never get used to just kinda eyeballing where a note is supposed to be, I strongly disagree about the trombone.
Well now how am I supposed to enjoy the sensation of someone else’s sweaty hand sliding down the pole to slowly touch mine while they remain oblivious of the entire situation?
I mean, it would probably be a good opportunity for a handful of really rich people to further their control and ownership globally…so as long as our billionaire overlords value human life over their own personal power we should be good.
This would explain the other article I saw about a US-Clooney $20 billion arms deal.
No clue? Somewhere between a few years (assuming some unexpected breakthrough) or many decades? The consensus from experts (of which I am not) seems to be somewhere in the 2030s/40s for AGI. I’m guessing accuracy probably will be more on a topic by topic basis, LLMs might never even get there, or only related to things they’ve been heavily trained on. If predictive text doesn’t do it then I would be betting on whatever Yann LeCun is working on.
Perhaps there is some line between assuming infinite growth and declaring that this technology that is not quite good enough right now will therefore never be good enough?
Blindly assuming no further technological advancements seems equally as foolish to me as assuming perpetual exponential growth. Ironically, our ability to extrapolate from limited information is a huge part of human intelligence that AI hasn’t solved yet.
GPT-2 came out a little more than 5 years ago, it answered 0% of questions accurately and couldn’t string a sentence together.
GPT-3 came out a little less than 4 years ago and was kind of a neat party trick, but I’m pretty sure answered ~0% of programming questions correctly.
GPT-4 came out a little less than 2 years ago and can answer 48% of programming questions accurately.
I’m not talking about mortality, or creativity, or good/bad for humanity, but if you don’t see a trajectory here, I don’t know what to tell you.
This is very much the type of case that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
It’s an important lesson for this generation of graduates: robots aren’t ready to take your jobs…but we’re pushing it through anyway.
Probably somewhere around the time they realized referring to themselves as “actual women” was not a particularly inclusive, or kind, look.
The only JRR Tolkien game I care about is the fully immersive VR experience where you tell bedtime stories to a young Christopher Tolkien who calls you out on any minor continuity errors you make.
Hey I found this cool post from that guy you’re quoting.
Step 1: Destroy studios making good games.
(They forgot about a Step 2)
The company is offering affected users a 30 percent discount on a new Ecobee thermostat, valid for up to 15 thermostats.
…
He was just spit balling
I originally read the title as “it is more difficult to influence public policy in least-developed countries based on this study” but it appears it’s actually “it is more difficult for scientists to advocate for science-backed policies in least-developed countries.”