I would be surprised if, in the "mature" future of AI tools/products, the labs building the models are also selling/building to end users like they are now.
>I think I'm at 1 success out of 15 attempts for Gemini to explain how to do something in Google Sheets/Docs, though, so I'm not hopeful that anyone can actually implement this.
People love to talk about this as one of the helpful features of AI (knowledge extraction from documents/summarizing), but I'm really not convinced. The last generation of models seem to have 70-90% accuracy on tasks like this, which is way below what i'd consider a reliable tool
I don't know if there are any benchmarks for this sort of task, maybe the new ones are improved but I also doubt that people are using GPT5.5 pro ultrathink for these tasks anyways
Me explaining to a teacher why i cheated on the test: well did you stop to consider the cognitive load of doing the problems myself and how much easier it was to cheat?
I can’t agree more, this “our software is open source but we have unwritten rules about how you can use it or we’ll attempt to shame you” attitude is absurd
I think they're talking about conjectures that are unproven but seem "likely true" and people build further math off the assumption. E.G Reimann hypothesis
This comment seems addressed to the portion of the population that both doesn’t know how to safely buy illegal drugs and also is able to determine which drug sellers are reputable. i can only assume this is an extremely small amount of people
Chess is absolutely not a solved game, outside of very limited situations like endgames. Just because a best move exists does not mean we (or even an engine) know what it is