nicklecompte

26 ms·

61.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
"Geared for the general public" is an interesting and revealing observation. You might not have given the "right test" in terms of the actual userbase, but it is absolutely the right test in terms of Elicit's market
62.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
This is true but if the error rate were 1/1000 I could see the risk management argument for using this thing. 1/100 is pushing it. 1/10 seems unconscionably reckless and lazy.
63.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I am not sure what you mean by this comment. I took the language from the developers. If you mean that commercial AI providers should give more specific information then I agree wholeheartedly. I assume it is difficult for Elicit to give sp
64.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Those numbers are arbitrary and fictional, and the more relevant made-up quantity would be the variance rather than the mean. It doesn't really matter if the "average user" saves time over 10,000 queries. I am much more con
65.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
> A good rule of thumb is to assume that around 90% of the information you see in Elicit is accurate. While we do our best to increase accuracy without skyrocketing costs, it’s very important for you to check the work in Elicit closely.
66.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I believe the issue is "emotion" and "emotional tone" are not the same thing, in the same way that "humor" and "written joke" aren't the same thing. You can convey emotional tones without having
67.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I am criticizing Sam Altman for making an unethical business decision. I didn't say "Sam Altman should go to jail because GPT-4o is creepy" or "I want to away your AI girlfriend." So I am not sure what "belief
68.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
> I guarantee you haven't done an in-depth study of the merits of cryogenics. Neither have I yet, but there are many smart people who do think the tradeoff is worth it. This is literally the strategy of conspiracy theorists! "Y
69.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
"People who support cryonics are sober-minded, reasonable individuals who would surely never be misled by unscientific techno-mysticism." I am amazed at the Dunning-Kruger syndrome on display here.
70.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Sure, I was being sloppy, I meant "suspiciously timed announcement."
71.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I wasn't making an accusation about why Leike/Sutskever left, though I definitely understand why you read my comment that way. The actual accusation I am making is that someone at OpenAI knew the risks of GPT-4o and Sam Altman did
72.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
"fundamentally unsafe people" is probably the grossest thing I've read on here in years.
73.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I have schizophrenia. I have struggled with nicotine addiction since high school. In 2015 I had three heart attacks in a month, even though I was only 28 and seemed physically fit. Two weeks ago I had a minor stroke. It is not just me and i
74.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Specifically I am supposing the superalignment people were generally more concerned about AI safety and ethics than Altman/etc. I don't think this has anything to do with superalignment itself.
75.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-n... A larger proportion of people diagnosed with mental disorders report cigarette smoking compared with people without mental disorders. Among US ad
76.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
It is easy to point to loopy theories around superalignment, p(doom), etc. But you don't have to be hopped up on sci-fi to oppose something like GPT-4o. Low-latency response time is fine. The faking of emotions and overt references to
77.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
This research strikes me as hot garbage :/ In particular there are dozens of studies like this, which compare to AI with "humans" without adequately addressing sample bias: Human participants (N = 151) were recruited via
78.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
"Computational fluid dynamics is hard" seems like a true bona fide CS invariant.
79.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
This is pure astrology, but given the veneer of objectivity with the magic of AI. Grab a few anecdotes to imply specificity, but then the actual judgments are unfalsifiable nothingburgers which probably apply to 95% of HN commenters. A lot
80.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Minor nitpick: > A past what-the-fuck was that we know exactly how many cells there are (959) in a particular little worm, C. elegans, and how each of those cells arises from the division of previous cells, as the grows from a fertilized
81.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
What part of this makes you think GPT-4 suddenly developed a world model? I find this comment ridiculous and bizarre. Do you seriously think snappy response time + fake emotions is an indicator of intelligence? It seems like you are just ge
82.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
There is a very intelligent system, far more intelligent than GPT-4, which uses a tiny fraction of the energy. It's called a "rat," and despite requiring only 2 watts of power, it can perform the following tasks which are far
83.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Badly: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mHqQxwKuzZS69CXX5/whole-brai... (the comments have some updates as of 2023) Almost every other cell in the worm can be simulated with known biophysics. But we don't have
84.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
I think you would also need the epigenetic side, which is very poorly understood: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/biologists-trans... We have more detail than this about the C. elegans nematode brain, yet w
85.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
Crow/parrot brains are tiny but in terms of neuron count they are twice as dense as primate brains (including ours): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221... If someone did this ex
86.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
The whole point of past AI winters is that genuinely useful technologies were preposterously overhyped as representing "human cognition," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The bubble bursts - and the money evaporates
87.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
The website ( https://www.nixtla.io/ ) says all sorts of companies are using this: Ford, Lyft, Nestle, T-Mobile, Wayfair, etc etc. That's not actually true, right? Surely that's a lie? I find it very unlikely that
88.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
If you check the byline, the author is a Microsoft MVP / product evangelist. So I don't think he's biased towards SO so much as he is biased towards anyone doing business with Microsoft (or OpenAI). He also seems very pro-Git
89.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
> PE firms aren’t running around flipping veterinarian firms for a couple hundred grand. They do that with fortune 500 companies for billions, not vet offices for tens of thousands. They’re buying them because they expect good ROI going
90.
by nicklecompte 2y ago
> if they’re such a great profit source that PE firms are snapping them up This is where the Econ 101 naiveté of your comment goes completely off the rails. I am wondering if you are trolling. - A vet certainly does not need to be a &quo

More ›