3 ms·

I'm trying to think of the last time a product came out and the public and government's response was "That's so amazing, it has to be fraud", but it was legitim

by berbec 3y ago

I'm trying to think of the last time a product came out and the public and government's response was "That's so amazing, it has to be fraud", but it was legitimate. I'm a little tired, so all I'm drawing is a blank.

minutillo 3y ago
Some examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2007385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2007385
- smugma 3y ago
  Dan Ariely is not a great source to reference these days.
gwern 3y ago
That's been a very common reaction to many deep learning successes the past few years. I lost track of how many people seriously suggested that a GPT-3 output might be some outsourced laborer in realtime, never mind how fast the output came back for arbitrary inputs!
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  If we're talking about general reactions of serious (and supposedly serious) people, and not just government (as per GP's question), then SpaceX reusable rockets also qualify - I remember people were still arguing that physics makes it infeasible, some even saying fundamentally impossible, for some time after the first successful landing of a booster in a regular launch (and not a test). (Ironically, this briefly turning into some kind of conspiracy thing was likely fueled in large part because SpaceX couldn't get something else right: their live streaming setup. Even a a year later, the streaming still tended to cut off exactly as the booster was about to land, and resumed with it either in pieces, or safely on the pad. This was a big problem with barge landings in particular - where IIRC the primary explanation was that they just couldn't keep the antenna pointed in the right direction with all the shaking induced by the booster's hoverslam.) (And yes, I appreciate the irony of getting hung up over live streamed booster landing, as if it was common and expected practice.)
copperx 3y ago
This year, a few months ago, GPT-4 was made available. Is it that far away already?
tjmc 3y ago
That was my initial response to Stable Diffusion images

by berbec 3y ago

minutillo 3y ago

Some examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2007385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2007385

smugma 3y ago
Dan Ariely is not a great source to reference these days.

gwern 3y ago

That's been a very common reaction to many deep learning successes the past few years. I lost track of how many people seriously suggested that a GPT-3 output might be some outsourced laborer in realtime, never mind how fast the output came back for arbitrary inputs!

TeMPOraL 3y ago
If we're talking about general reactions of serious (and supposedly serious) people, and not just government (as per GP's question), then SpaceX reusable rockets also qualify - I remember people were still arguing that physics makes it infeasible, some even saying fundamentally impossible, for some time after the first successful landing of a booster in a regular launch (and not a test). (Ironically, this briefly turning into some kind of conspiracy thing was likely fueled in large part because SpaceX couldn't get something else right: their live streaming setup. Even a a year later, the streaming still tended to cut off exactly as the booster was about to land, and resumed with it either in pieces, or safely on the pad. This was a big problem with barge landings in particular - where IIRC the primary explanation was that they just couldn't keep the antenna pointed in the right direction with all the shaking induced by the booster's hoverslam.) (And yes, I appreciate the irony of getting hung up over live streamed booster landing, as if it was common and expected practice.)

copperx 3y ago

This year, a few months ago, GPT-4 was made available. Is it that far away already?

tjmc 3y ago

That was my initial response to Stable Diffusion images