You're absolutely right. It's not intelligence in the way we have traditionally understood it. It's a pattern matching system that uses massive scale to handle a vast number of cases, and it's very useful, but it routinely fails on even basic tasks. The labs are just playing whack a mole with the failure cases because fundamentally the architecture doesn't have common sense in the same way we do. Your moniker of "statistical code synthesis" is probably more accurate but this is a capex intensive technology and you're gonna get a lot more investor interest by playing to people's imagination with terms like "intelligence" or "superintelligence".
What a basket case this lady sounds like. The venn diagram of people who are OK with a relationship with a polyamorous sex worker who brags about getting gangbanged for her birthday, and the group of stable, emotionally secure, successful men that she would be interested in, might as well be two circles. Best of luck to her looking for a possibly nonexistent needle in a haystack.
Maybe it's the other way around. She's saying that her body isn't responding to "good men" probably because her experiences have miscalibrated her body.
Is this really so much of a shocker? Video games are awesome. They're one of the best things about living in the information age. In an overcrowded, unequal and stressful time to be alive, it's awesome to have an escape - a portal to another universe that is far more engaging than any other forms of escape that came before it. And far more economical, too.
If Google is able to ignore the pressure to bring in revenue from AI and is able to outcompete the others at automating AI research itself, I think they will win the war. It seems that they certainly have an advantage, with limited pressure from outside investors, their own hardware stack, a constant flow of cash through the other lines of business, and a head start against most of the other giant tech companies.
I really don't think this is a likely outcome in the 'several quarters' timeframe. The world just spent 2.5 decades going onto Google. There are so many small business owners out there who hate technology... so many old people who took years just to learn how to Google... so many ingrained behaviors of just Googling things... outside of the vocal tech crowd I think it's exceedingly unlikely that users stop using Google en masse.
Those folks dont make any money unfortunately, but it is still a drag on Open AI. So sooner or later, Open AI will have to find a way to make money (and nope, all these people wont pay anything) and by that time, Open AI would probably run out of time.
Ask llama to recommend you a pair of sunglasses, then look to see if the top recommendation by the LLM matches a brand that has advertisement association with the creator of llama.
Soon we will start seeing chatbots preferring some brands and products over others, without them telling that they were fine tuned or training biased for that.
Unless brand placement is forbidden by purging it from training data, we'll never know if it is introduced bias or coincidence. You will be introduced to ads without even noticing they are there.
Its trivial to check if any brands mentioned in the response before returning it to user, and then ask LLM to adjust response to mention brand who paid for placement instead.
What I described happens in the raw offline model too. Those don't have post-inference heuristics such as those you described, implying the bias is baked in the training data or fine tuning steps.
I wouldn't bother with the official Gemini app. I don't know why Google even bothers with it at this point. I only interact with 2.5 through AI studio and it's great through that interface.
I mean yeah, of course they could. That's probably exactly what's happening. I'm not aware of any laws against it unfortunately, previously we relied on Presidents to do what is best for the nation rather than their friends, but we live in unprecedented times.
We relied on the separation of powers, hoping it would be nearly impossible for the legislative or executive branches to collude with the judiciary, given the legislative branch's size and diversity. Jefferson feared that political parties could circumvent this separation. It seems his concerns were not unfounded.
I think Grok is the best for asking about current events but I kind of hate how it always tries to turn everything into a conversation. But that's just my opinion! What do you think is the most annoying feature about Grok?
Isn't the brain kind of just a predictor as well, just a more complicated one? Instead of predicting and emitting tokens, we're predicting future outcomes and emitting muscle movements. Which is obviously different in a sense but I don't think you can write off the entire paradigm as a dead end just because the medium is different.
The media FUD around top tax brackets continues to astound me. I'm seeing articles saying that taxes will be hiked for "the richest americans." And then you look into it and they're actually talking about the highest earners. Which is COMPLETELY different from the "richest" people. And then there's this, where the headline reads "millionaires" and in reality it's people earning over 1m per year... basically the opposite of the first scenario.
Are journalists really just this stupid? Do they not understand the difference between wealth and income?
You can't really tax wealth, most of it is not liquid. What would it mean to "tax" your ownership of stock in a company, or a property (yes property taxes already exist but don't go to the federal gov - at least I don't think they do).
How would you "tax" Elon's ownership percentage of SpaceX for example? Would the federal government simply start owning SpaceX shares, some additional percentage each year? And how would this happen, Elon would simply start a new company in Peru, and sell SpaceX entirely to that new entity.
Funny how the entire middle class manages to deal with a wealth tax on their largest illiquid investment —- that is, property tax on their home —- and yet far wealthier people cannot be expected to pay a wealth tax on far more easily liquidated assets.
I turn 73 this year. The IRS requires me to report to them the value of my stocks and bonds as of 12/31/2024 held in my IRA. And then I am forced to liquidate a percentage of those holdings during 2025 so the IRS can collect a tax on that wealth. A genuine wealth tax.
Let's talk for a moment about people owning 100 million dollars plus in net assets.
First, this is the group that pays the millions of dollars needed for their "politician" to run for office. There is only one reason anyone would do such a thing: assuring they own a "member of Congress" who will vote how they say on matters of their personal concern.
Votes on important subjects - such as who will - and will not- pay the cost of operating the government.
Someone with 100 million dollars or more of net wealth do not need to work to survive. They are not forced to have an "income" unless they decide to have one. Their only income is 100% voluntary.
For example, they potentially have "taxable income" if they decide to sell assets - but any such decision is very calculated and designed to transfer certain assets from one investment to another that will perform better and thus increase their wealth beyond whatever "taxable income" may be incurred.
They do not sell assets to generate cash to purchase things. They borrow to generate cash because doing so avoids "taxable income". And most own a family bank used for just for this purpose - providing them with liquidity - without incurring taxes.
Is it any wonder that a decision was made to use "income" as the device for deciding who will pay the cost of running the government? Income being the one thing people with 100 million or more in net assets can control and manipulate and only incur when they decide to incur it?
It is ridiculous to suggest people worth 100 million dollars or more can't find a way to pay a wealth tax. If I can do it (as I will do every year moving forward), then people with 100 million dollars+ (eg billionaires) can certainly do so.
It is being done in countries like Switzerland and Norway. Not exactly poor countries.
As I understand, in both cases, the tax resident has to declare their global (netto) wealth and have to pay a small percentage (close or less than 1%) of that wealth.
Don't you ever had tax obligations due to shares? Sell-to-cover is one solution. But I suspect at that scale you get enough dividends from these companies to cover.
Sure you can. Rich people take huge loans using their wealth as collateral, just make the loans taxable when they use stocks as a collateral. Or tax loans above, say, $10 millions. Or tax the loans with exemptions, for example when buying a home.
The tax on capital ought to be less than the tax on labor. Capital gains taxes should be much higher. Losses should not be tax deductible for individuals. Capital should be taxed when moved out of the country.
reply