Really neat that water can turn into a conductive metal at high enough pressures such as in the core of Neptune.

The fact that this might get us closer to being about to generate fusion power is awesome and kind of scary.

I’m going to use those things as answer machines and you can’t stop me.

Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn’t exist. To its credit, I said, “Are you sure about [function]?” and it said, “I’m sorry, I got confused. That function doesn’t exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources” and I did and they were the correct things to look into.

The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don’t understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I’m ten, explain as if I’m an undergrad, etc).

I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don’t really agree that it’s a “parlor trick”.

I was kind of with you until saying they’re “being a fucking idiot.”

Encouraging someone to help out? Great.

Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.

Fascinating that people with stutters can be helped by practicing speaking with speech jammers.

It makes me think about how ADHD medication will make people without ADHD more distractible while it’ll help focus people with it.

John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.

Old-school AI systems from way back in the day called Expert Systems were just a crapload of IF statements. There’s never been a concrete agreed-upon definition of AI because there’s never been an agreed-upon definition of the word Intelligence.

The free version gets things wrong a bunch. It’s impressive how good GPT-4 is. Human brains are still a million times better in almost every way (they cost a few dollars of energy to operate per day, for example) but it’s really hard to believe how capable the state of the art of LLMs is until you’ve tried it.

You’re right about one thing though. Humans are able to know things, and to know when we don’t know things. Current LLMs (transformer-based architecture) simply can’t do that yet.

if you’ve never posted anything useful to anyone

First of all, I’ve put painstaking effort into a lot of contributions. It hurts to delete them. Second of all, I don’t need to be a contributor to be impacted by people deleting valuable comments, but I still support the deletion.

Reddit had become the “go-to” place for finding trustworthy user reviews, and it’s been shoring up weaknesses in Google’s search engine for a few years now. They don’t deserve the reputation of being that platform because they regularly abuse and alienate good-faith contributors, and the CEO of the company has been caught multiple times in lies and completely unprofessional and untrustworthy behavior.

Fortunately, there are backups of Reddit and archive systems. It’s time for users who care about contributing to bring their value elsewhere, where we can build new ecosystems of user-powered value and knowledge sharing.

It’s not about spite. It’s about not wanting your past work and creativity to continue to help an individual and a company who are bad for society, and who are destroying a platform many people loved.

I think jumping straight to calling Spez a Nazi is ridiculous.

On the other hand, Reddit has repeatedly aggressively looked the other way when it came to communities that blatantly violated the rules such as The Donald, jailbait, etc, while cracking down on and banning far milder users and communities.

Look, I found your original point interesting, but if there was a major upset in the microwave industry, then that would belong in the technology section of a news site too.

I think the fundamental question is, as the Fediverse gets more popular, then how will servers get paid for? Here are some possibilities I see for how Fediverse hosting could work at scale:

• Surviving off donations alone: Possible but in my estimation unlikely, and it could veer into the territory of big donors having a controlling stake or exerting their interests.
• Instances limiting number of users to what they can afford: This would require the network of instances process to really work well.
• Big instances selling advertisements: Without oversight or moral commitment, this could easily go towards creepy personal data collection.
• Crowdsourcing the costs: This would require transparency and fundraising or some other model
• Hosts financing the operation in other ways: This could also easily get into creepy data collection practices or other dark patterns.

I hope we come up with some process or plan for avoiding the pitfalls and forging an honest and community-integrating way forward.

I haven’t heard of cognitive schema assimilation. That sounds interesting. It sounds like it might fall prey to challenges we’ve had with symbolic AI in the past though.

The threat is a new sustainable community that’s sheltered from advertising that people could leave Factbook/Instagram/whatever and go to.

So then why was Meta trying to get Threads to be on the Fediverse? Of course they’re aware of any potential threats, no matter how small.

I wonder if planting 73 different kinds of ferns would have this benefit, or if they have to be very different kinds of plants.

When one side is suspiciously quiet or supportive about legislation that’s against their publicly stated goals, it’s because they secretly want it too.

I feel like I remember them being there since January of this year, which is when I started playing with ChatGPT, but I could be mistaken.

Recent papers have shown that LLMs build internal world models but about a topic as niche and complicated as cancer treatment, a chatbot based on GPT-3.5 be woefully ill-equipped to do any kind of proper reasoning.