The motive appears to be to get tax credits as opposed to becoming a full-on patent troll, though with how quickly China is speedrunning their version of capitalism I would not be surprised if it turns into patent trolling.
Their behaviour overall is really giving me mixed feelings, because the Bambu A1 I have is an absolutely amazing machine for the price, and I've been casually in this since the Printrbot days.
As a layman, this too strikes me as the problem underlying the "confidently wrong" problem.
The author proposes ways for an AI to signal when it is wrong and to learn from its mistakes. But that mechanism feeds back to the core next token matcher. Isn't this just replicating the problem with extra steps?
I feel like this is a framing problem. It's not that an LLM is mostly correct and just sometimes confabulates or is "confidently wrong". It's that an LLM is confabulating all the time, and all the techniques thrown at it do is increase the measured incidence of LLM confabulations matching expected benchmark answers.
I saw a post on this subject in the android subreddit back in 2019 [0] and it was clear that everyone had already accepted by then that the market was too small to sustain this. I too loved Sony's series of compact phones - the XZ1 Compact is still one of the best phones I've ever used.
It is only going to get worse. Most of us who were young adults when the iPhone was announced are in our 40s now, and presbyopia is a real thing. In a few years my daily QOL will be better served by a bigger phone and I suspect many people around my age are feeling the same thing. The "small electronic accessory I bring around" niche will be filled by smartwatches.
> Congratulations: you have successfully turned your cool idea into a chore.
The article gave me a vague, off-topic sense of unease but your comment crystallised the feeling for me.
I really wish less emphasis is placed on this kind of blue-sky, "strategic" thinking, and more placed on the "chores". Legwork, maintenance, step-by-step execution of a plan, issue tracking, perspective shifting etc. are all, in my opinion, critically important and much more deserving of praise and respect than so-called "strategic" thinking.
Which, IME, most people can't do anyway! After they've talked their big talk you suggest that there's a practical, on-ground problem and they look at you accusingly, like you're sabotaging their picture. And I'm like, no, my friend; reality is sabotaging your picture, it's just the two of us here and you're not losing any face by me pointing that out, and also if you were an actual strategic thinker you'd have taken my on-ground problem into account already...
I played around with the website. I will take the author's advice to not take it seriously.
Many of the changes are active voice to passive voice. It might sound more polite, but in reality comes off as sneering or condescending.
For e.g., if I've already told you something, I usually change communication channels to a more casual one (pick up the phone, pop my head up, walk over, go on a chat channel) and say: "hey, that question you had, it's already addressed in my email, see this bit over here...".
I would not, as the website suggests, say any of this:
- "There seems to be a disconnect here as this information has already been provided."
- "The information has not changed since the last time it was communicated."
- "As indicated prior."
If you did this to me, I would think you are a jerk.
> I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.
The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.
The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.
If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.
I was deeply sceptical of LK-99 and simply chose not to comment on it in public on the internet because: (1) confirmation or contradiction will come soon enough, and (2) being sceptical, however measured, usually attracts accusations of being a negative, cynical naysayer, and I don't need that in my life.
The motive appears to be to get tax credits as opposed to becoming a full-on patent troll, though with how quickly China is speedrunning their version of capitalism I would not be surprised if it turns into patent trolling.
Their behaviour overall is really giving me mixed feelings, because the Bambu A1 I have is an absolutely amazing machine for the price, and I've been casually in this since the Printrbot days.