4 ms·
So you are just going to ignore the data (not anecdotes) presented in the SP?
by jeremyjh 3y ago
So you are just going to ignore the data (not anecdotes) presented in the SP?
- beebmam 3y ago[flagged]
- majkinetor 3y agoHere it is just for you: https://t.co/H6OWhUkzcW https://t.co/H6OWhUkzcW
- Georgelemental 3y agoReplace twitter.com with nitter.net in the url
- jeremyjh 3y agoWell thanks for sharing your ignorance with us.
- pc86 3y agoThen why comment? I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is literally the only comment you've made in this thread. The linked article is a Twitter thread. If you don't have Twitter, fine, move on to the next thing you can actually comment on. Person A offers a reason why we may want to be slightly more skeptical than normal about this information. Person B suggests we can pretty easily look past that. Person C (you) injects themselves in the conversation simply to say that they can't add anything to the conversation. The closest example I can think of that is equally cringe-inducing is two people talking about a show and an unasked third party leaning in to add, "well, I don't have a television so I can't comment."
- benterix 3y agoI don't think the comment is unwarranted - it happened to me the other day: someone refers me to a particular Twitter post and I can't access it without a Twitter account. I don't know if it's a glitch or deliberate but it makes referring people to Twitter similar to referring them to Facebook posts (which is not really practiced on HN). Times change, I guess.
- autoexec 3y agoI do think it'd be nice if people mostly posted links that were accessible to the general public. At least paywalled articles usually have a link in the comments where they can be read. Many times tweets could even be pasted as text into a comment to make them accessible.
- pc86 3y agoTwitter accounts are free and I think it takes about 60 seconds to make one, so for all intents and purposes a Twitter thread is publicly accessible.
- autoexec 3y agoLast I heard they required a phone number which isn't free. I even created a couple accounts a long time ago, but they were both banned after a week or so. I suspect because they thought they were bot accounts. I used free email services like yahoo to sign up, I only ever used the website and not the app, and I never posted or interacted with anything, I just followed a small number of accounts.
- Vvector 3y agoChatGPT isn't the right tool to use for checking if numbers are prime. It is tuned for conversations. I'd like to see a MathGPT or WolframGPT. The real question is if ChatGPT is worse on math and better elsewhere, or just worse overall. That is still unknown
- jfim 3y agoInterestingly enough, ChatGPT can generate Wolfram language queries. > Can you give me a query in Wolfram language for the first 25 prime numbers? > Prime[Range[25]] > What about one for the limit of 2/x as x tends towards infinity? > Limit[2/x, x -> Infinity] Edited out most of the chatter from it for clarity.
- csmpltn 3y ago> "ChatGPT isn't the right tool to use for checking if numbers are prime. It is tuned for conversations." Two months ago they were telling me ChatGPT is coming for everyone - programmers, accountants, technical writers, lawyers, etc. Now we're slowly back to "so here's the thing about LLMs"...
- appletrotter 3y agoIt's been well know from the start that these LLMs aren't optimized for math. I remember reading discussions when it came out. You weren't paying attention.
- dingnuts 3y agoThat last sentence is pretty dismissive and unnecessary, maybe even outright mean. It's possible that the person you're replying to is simply not as deeply ingrained in the technical literature as you are, or has more demands on their time than you do.
- phantompeace 3y agoIt didn’t seem particularly mean to me.