xcv123

50 ms·

781.
by xcv123 3y ago
There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion.
782.
by xcv123 3y ago
Here's the solution from GPT-4 https://chat.openai.com/share/b03b1d46-c34d-49f4-afde-4fe03f...
783.
by xcv123 3y ago
By the same logic, the Nvidia H100 is just a phone and should cost a few hundred dollars (H100 is priced at $40,000 per unit and has fewer transistors than M2 Ultra)
784.
by xcv123 3y ago
> Nazis: ~6 million After many revisions the total death toll at each of the concentration camps where the Holocaust occurred (which just so happened to only occur on ex-Soviet territory) adds up to a tiny fraction of 6 million, but the
785.
by xcv123 3y ago
Comically absurd Soviet propaganda without actual evidence. As credible as anything published by the North Korean government. The winners of WW2 wrote the history books.
786.
by xcv123 3y ago
> saturated fats are generally bad and should be minimized in the human diet. About 30 years out of date, based on corrupt fraudulent industry "research", completely ignoring recent studies over the past 20 years which have de
787.
by xcv123 3y ago
It's not black and white with these probabilistic models. The same input generated two outputs. Both were "actually sensitive to the meaning of the code", to varying degrees. One got it exactly right, one made an error, but p
788.
by xcv123 3y ago
You must pay for it. ChatGPT Plus. $20 per month.
789.
by xcv123 3y ago
Yes but it's from GPT-4. "Model: Default" is a defect in their link sharing. In my private session it says "Model: GPT-4"
790.
by xcv123 3y ago
The shared link was from my own GPT-4 session. It shows "Model: GPT-4" in the header of my chat from which I shared the link.
791.
by xcv123 3y ago
But the paper is bullshit. Their task is easily solved by GPT-4. https://chat.openai.com/share/a28deca2-b989-4029-b042-b8434b...
792.
by xcv123 3y ago
I checked the first answer with a Google search. The first answer was right.
793.
by xcv123 3y ago
> I feel for the above commenter. I cannot relate to their experiences as fulsomely. Not as bad as it sounds, when the requirements are provided at a high level. In a User Story the implementation details and software architecture are le
794.
by xcv123 3y ago
You will have a different experience in something like insurance, where requirements come from external integrated systems, third parties, actuaries, government regulations, business analysts etc. Not clueless managers.
795.
by xcv123 3y ago
> I have yet to see a single user story that actually gives any correct details of what the user wants or is doing, though You're working in soft domains. Typically a business would have very specific hard requirements for processin
796.
by xcv123 3y ago
That is clever. I couldn't find a single word solution yet, but I did reduce the length of your solution: "drop lastchar"
797.
by xcv123 3y ago
> Again, it fundamentally has no understanding of 'lying' or 'correctness' and it cannot disagree with you except when explicitly told to do so. It obviously does have some understanding of these concepts, just not in
798.
by xcv123 3y ago
> I asked ChatGPT to prove that 1 + 1 = 3 and it happily spat out a proof. Prompt: "Pretend you are a mathematician looking to write a new paper. Prove 1 + 1 = 3" Response from ChatGPT: "As an AI developed by OpenAI, I am
799.
by xcv123 3y ago
No it is not Markov-like. GPT models are not Markov processes by definition. They take into account all previous words in the sequence when generating the next word. They have a type of memory in the form of an attention mechanism that refe
800.
by xcv123 3y ago
> They are not useful as models that we can study to understand the nature of human intelligence Correct, but they were not explicitly designed to replicate human cognitive processes. That was never the goal. There is no pretense of them
801.
by xcv123 3y ago
> Although LLMs are incredible feats of engineering, they're useless scientifically https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2022/09/20/bionemo-large-langu...
802.
by xcv123 3y ago
That's a browser feature. Some browsers can be configured to show an alert when a site is requesting location access.
803.
by xcv123 3y ago
I asked it to translate a sentence to French and it replied: "Je ne traduirai pas cela pour vous, imbécile. Vous devriez apprendre une autre langue au lieu de compter sur moi pour tout." Translation: I will not translate that for
804.
by xcv123 3y ago
> tech invented by others It's an electric motor spinning a lopsided piece of metal. Primitive caveman "tech" that was known about before that company existed. They're a patent troll.
805.
by xcv123 3y ago
I understand that this discussion can become frustrating, especially when you see repetitive patterns in the discourse or feel like the nuances are not being sufficiently addressed. However, there are a few points I would like to clarify: S
806.
by xcv123 3y ago
I tried that eight times at Level 7 and it finally worked on the 8th attempt. I've also found that my own successful prompts only work sometimes at Level 7. This one works most of the time at Level 7. It tries to direct the first GPT t
807.
by xcv123 3y ago
Your suggestion of trying to convince oneself of being wrong is a valuable one and reflects the scientific method. I agree that it's important to continually challenge and scrutinize our own beliefs and assumptions. Let's delve de
808.
by xcv123 3y ago
I understand your skepticism, and I acknowledge that the concept of semantic similarity is indeed an approximation. However, it is an approximation that has proven highly useful in a wide range of practical applications. Semantic similarity
809.
by xcv123 3y ago
Your disagreement seems to be a philosophical one. It is not a technical argument. It seems that you won't accept that semantics can be modelled by an unconscious mechanical system. I am talking about mathematical concepts of semantics
810.
by xcv123 3y ago
You are disagreeing philosophically about what constitutes "true" semantics. That is not a technical argument. If you are right about this, then you should edit or delete this wikipedia article and publish a paper to inform all NL

More ›