It's also to be defensible in court. If an opposing party can make the valid argument that "They leave the doors wide open and scatter IP willy-nilly, why wouldn't the IP get leaked?" it makes it harder to argue "Person X stole information when it was obvious that there was an expectation of secrecy"
As much as I'd love to hear about the details of the drama as the next person, they really don't have to say anything publicly. We are all going to continue using the product. They don't have public investors. The only concern about perception they may have is if they intend to raise more money anytime soon.
Why do I need to translate my question into an optimal set of keywords that will give me what I want while minimizing unwanted results? Google search was a great stepping stone and connects you with the web, but it’s broken in many ways when it comes to what value we are really trying to extract.
A machine that can hone in on what I’m getting at in an intuitive sense while having all of human data available to generate a response is so much more powerful.
I can't relate to this statement at all. I actually enjoy grocery shopping. I look forward to it every week. It gives me an opportunity to pick out what I want to eat or make during the week. I love cooking and discovering new food, so it's a bit of a hobby. I know its incredibly inefficient and something that I could do faster ordering online, but shopping for food is weirdly nostalgic and human to me. Procuring food, even though it's still within the structure of industrialized grocery, is the last thing in my life that hasn't been completely digitized and I find it pleasantly inefficient and archaic.
I mostly shop a Trader Joes, aside from other specific things I may need at a specialty store.
Around once a week or so I'll cook something novel but it is a special occasion, but there's a good chance I'll pick it up at a farmer's market or the quirky healthfood store.
False. It's unfalsifiable. There is no experiment possible that you can set up to answer these questions, any more than you can construct an experiment to prove whether there is a God.
What's mind blowing is that you can extrapolate where this is going to go. Eventually, you will be able to generate full movie scenes from descriptions.
What's interesting to me is how this is so similar to human imagination. Give me a description and I will fabricate the visuals in my mind. Some aspects will be detailed, others will be vague, or unimportant. Crazy to see how fast AI is progressing. Machines are approaching the ability to interpret and visualize text in the same way humans can.
This also fascinates me as a form of compression. You can transmit concepts and descriptions without transmitting pixel data, and the visuals can be generated onsite. Wonder if there is some practical application for this.
IMHO this particular avenue is a dead end. It's an extraordinarily impressive dead end but it's clear that there's no real understanding here. Look at this video of the knight riding a horse:
The knight's upper body doesn't match with the lower and they're not moving correctly
I think ultimately the right path is something like AI automated Blender. AI creates the models & actions while Blender renders it according to a rules based physics engine.
Of course there "is no understanding here", but yet it's not all wrong. Somehow it did move the horse's legs roughly correctly (using the proper joints and all), somehow the cape is moving roughly as it should through the air and the knight's body absorbs the force of stomping on the ground…
It doesn't seem that the fundamental inability to understand what is going on in the scene is stopping models of this kind to eventually lead to realistic results.
I guess it comes down to how much wiggle room is in "roughly". If you watch the video closely the horse briefly gets a 5th leg when the front left one moves the first time. And yes the legs and joints are sort of right but they don't match up with the direction the horse is moving and wouldn't work in the real world.
It's superficially close but when you look at details they're all slightly off. To wit:
> the knight's body absorbs the force of stomping on the ground…
But the Knight doesn't have any way to see through the helmet.
I would say that the wiggle room is smaller then I would expect it to be. Don't you agree?
And I was surprised about how small the wiggle room was the first time I interacted with GPT in text or saw the first images from DALL-E, since I too expected them to be (severly) limited by not understanding what's actually respresented in the input/output.
With new versions the wiggle room shrinks further. So I guess the question is, whether it will be able to shrink enough to be satisfactory. We will see…
Yeah nothing in the UI is connected directly to a sensor these days. The UI is just a display for relevant data on the CAN bus.
Sensors have redundancies and detections in both sensing and communications so that the receiving end knows when there is an issue and doesn't display false information, resulting in an error code being thrown and displaying a "check engine light".
Big companies top priorities are investor returns, not employing the masses. The result you describe is dependent on many more variables, like product demand actually necessitating hiring.
Because if you for example you held off on buying a house to pay off loans, and the day after you saved up enough for your down payment, your buddy Jeff, who ignored his loans, racking up interest, making questionable financial decisions, suddenly gets his loans payed off and now is competing in the housing market with you and everyone else, and home prices rise as a result, pushing your first home out of reach yet again, you are going to be pretty pissed off.
On the other hand, if my other buddy Alice was unable to pay her loans and struggling to pay for food without debt collectors knocking at her door, and now doesn't have to deal with that anymore, that'd offset my ire.
In fact, in a case like that, you should be pissed off at Jeff, not at the people helping everyone which happens to include Jeff.
It's not about feeding people with a degree. It's about reducing the punishment they had but shouldn't have. Ideally, higher education wouldn't cost extra, or at least not excessively so. But since it does, these efforts are to counteract that existing punishment, nothing more or less.
Should those specially seeking education be capable of doing reasonably simple calculations before taking massive amount of loans? It is not like the information of anything related was exactly hidden.
Who said anything was hidden? Most high school graduates in the US understand that going to college almost certainly means a lifetime of debt. But they also recognize the opportunity cost of being uneducated, which they deem a greater cost than the financial cost of loans. And please don't claim that's invalid, because (a) I agree, which is why I did it, and (b) claiming it's invalid implies that money is the only thing of importance in a person's life, which is kind of dystopian a view.
So they made a decision that opportunity > debt. Thus I see no reason to have others pay for their decisions. They freely chose that option. They should be adult enough to live with it and not ask for handouts with tax payers money.
Do you live on a deserted island alone? If not, then why do you seem to think the opportunity cost of other people being uneducated -- your neighbors, local business owners, motorists driving by your house, voters, politicians, etc. -- is only a cost to them, and doesn't affect your life?
