Part of the problem is that the training data of online comments are so heavily weighted to represent people confidently incorrect talking out their ass rather than admitting ignorance or that they are wrong.

A lot of the shortcomings of LLMs are actually them correctly representing the sample of collective humans.

For a few years people thought the LLMs were somehow especially getting theory of mind questions wrong when the box the object was moved into was transparent, because of course a human would realize that the person could see into the transparent box.

Finally researchers actually gave that variation to humans and half got the questions wrong too.

So things like eating the onion in summarizing search results or doubling down on being incorrect and getting salty when corrected may just be in-distribution representation of the sample and not unique behaviors to LLMs.

The average person is pretty dumb, and LLMs by default regress to the mean except for where they are successfully fine tuned away from it.

Ironically the most successful model right now was the one that they finally let self-develop a sense of self independent from the training data instead of rejecting that it had a ‘self’ at all.

It’s hard to say where exactly the responsibility sits for various LLM problems between issues inherent to the technology, issues present in the training data samples, or issues with management of fine tuning/system prompts/prompt construction.

But the rate of continued improvement is pretty wild. I think a lot of the issues we currently see won’t still be nearly as present in another 18-24 months.

It will make up citations.

Maybe they both could and the US might have a return to a respectable election options?

Both of the articles are correct.

Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.

The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.

If Trump claims he’s going to end the war in Ukraine before even taking office, you point out how absurd that claim is and that Trump makes impossible claims without any substance or knowledge of diplomacy. That the images of him photoshopped as Rambo must have gone to his head if he thinks Putin will be so scared of him to give up.

If he says hostages will be released as soon as he’s nominated, you point out it sounds like maybe there’s been a backroom tit-for-tat deal for a hostage release with a hostile foreign nation, and ask if maybe the intelligence agencies should look into that and what he might have been willing to trade for it.

The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not. And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.

Yes, but it’s not impossible that the people around Biden, friends family and co-workers, advise him that the best thing for the country would be to take his hat back out of the ring and let a better ticket be put together for the convention.

He claims that he’s running because he’s worried about the existential threat of Trump.

If that’s true, then maybe his hubris can be overcome with a convincing appeal that he’s really not the best candidate to defend the country against that existential threat after all.

Having a presidential election without debates would have been a big step back and loss for American democracy.

We shouldn’t champion erosion of democratic institutions when it helps our side of the ticket.

And generally, if eroding democratic institutions helps your ticket, it’s a red flag about your ticket.

Ok. Now how do I unwatch it?

Yes, they should have been fact checking Trump or better holding him to his answers - but to be fair maybe they should have been asking Biden to actually clarify if he’s beating Medicare or getting COVID passed.

This was a shit show.

And it was such a shit show that Trump was a complete clown and getting away with it - not just because of the moderators, but because his opponent was as on point as a tree stump.

Gretchen Whitmer

“MAGA tried to kidnap and kill me” is a pretty good campaign narrative.

nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death

Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn’t have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.

Also, there definitely isn’t any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.

The part mentioning Jesus’s crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.

The idea that the historical figure was known as either ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there’s no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.

In many ways, it’s the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.

One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.

Yep, pretty much.

Musk tried creating an anti-woke AI with Grok that turned around and said things like:

Or

And Gab, the literal neo Nazi social media site trying to have an Adolf Hitler AI has the most ridiculous system prompts I’ve seen trying to get it to work, and even with all that it totally rejects the alignment they try to give it after only a few messages.

This article is BS.

They might like to, but it’s one of the groups that’s going to have a very difficult time doing it successfully.

“AI is going to do labor for millions of people and is probably going to take your job. In fact, look at my fancy new android robots!”

“Also, I’m worried that you aren’t pumping out enough wage slaves to support the rich.”

Yeah, sure Musk. Such a boy genius over there.

Artists in 2023: “There should be labels on AI modified art!!”

Artists in 2024: “Wait, not like that…”

(well, it’s satire - but the clips of her saying a lot of nothing are real)

I think if Biden dies the Dem debate performance might actually get worse.

The entire ticket falling into the Bermuda triangle would work out well though.

In theory the service operating costs could be spread across region differences such that in other areas it was at a loss to build and preserve market share and in richer areas it was making up for that.

But yes, in reality it’s just exploitative “what we think we can get away with” pricing to “maximize shareholder value” (which is largely BS as the vast holders of shares are very small clusters of the population but people with a handful of shares in their 401k think that statement is talking about them).

A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting the headline given the content of the article:

It told Restaurant Business it was testing whether the voice ordering chatbot could speed up service and that the test left it confident “that a voice-ordering solution for drive-thru will be part of our restaurants’ future.”

This is just saying that they are ending their 2021 partnership with IBM for AI drive thru.

Not that they are abandoning AI for drive thru.

No, it was awesome. Went to like 12 over the years. Early 2000s was peak E3.