I’m not able to duplicate these results following their methodology, which makes me wonder if the OpenAI model is using memories from the reporter’s previous searches as context.
Code samples. This is what’s missing most of the time. Even if you encounter esoteric jargon, if they give a few examples, it’s pretty easy to decipher. Even big companies like Google give code examples in multiple languages.
Reading the whole article, the author clearly states he knows there is no sentience or anything mysterious going on, and acknowledges this is simply mimicking endless volumes of human dreck. What worries him, and I agree, is that if this were to go public as-is, the common populace wouldn’t understand that. This AI would con people into relationships, and maybe even instigate dangerous behavior. Such an AI would seem magical to the layperson.
When I think of future AI assistants, I’ve always pictured something akin to the Star Trek computer. A cold dispassionate voice that responds to what you need, and maybe only a hint of personality for color. Sydney feels like a full blown teenager going through some kind of emotional crisis.
Douglas Adams, [how to learn to love the internet]:
1. everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2. anything that gets invented between then and before you turn 30 is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3. anything that gets invented after you’re 30 is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.
I like to keep an open mind about these things. But they tend to be metaphysical arguments based on asking lots of questions and just pondering the issue, rather than on testable empiricism. If there is no physical test to prove the point, then it would equally valid for me to say we’re all video game characters, or living in a dream, or conjure up innumerable scenarios, no matter how ridiculous they could all be equally valid. It’s not scientific if it can’t be tested at some level through reproducible experiment. The point Carroll is making is that the atoms in our brain don’t magically float away after we die, and there is no scientific model that would allow that to happen, even through currently unexplained phenomena (like dark matter or weakly interacting particles).
It’s an argumentative fallacy to simply say we don’t know what we don’t know, therefore anything is possible. Rather than on what we currently do know.
Physicist Sean Carroll’s take, based empirical understanding, and what would be necessary for some essence of a person’s conscious to remain after death.
Animations can be a great way to create a sense of dynamism to a website. But it has to be very subtle, and done right. I sense most people’s knee-jerk reaction is to hate these, and I can understand why. I think the trick is to not break any expected UI conventions. So many flashy web experiences hijack the scroll, or create mystery buttons that aren’t clearly clickable. Harking back to Steve Krug’s mantra, “don’t make me think.” The best web design is so clear and intuitive, it rarely draws attention to itself. It’s like iOS animations, when closing an app, and seeing the app get sucked into it’s icon. It’s so quick and subtle, you barely notice it.
Kudos to the reduced motion advice at the end of the article, for better accessibility. I didn’t know this.
Oh no! The U.S. really needs to step up its game if it wants to stay competitive. (Honestly I couldn’t care less, but if a new space race injects further investment into science/space, I’m happy to be an instigator.)
This is fascinating, but also worrying how people might extrapolate too much from innate evolutionary upbringing. We’re social beings and there are so many examples of social constructs that benefit humans as a species but run against the grain of our more primal tendencies. It’s still important to study, and interesting nonetheless. But too often I see it used as a justification for people to express certain types of behavior (e.g. physical altercations, etc)