I mean, no, not really? "New AI is not as energy-efficient as first advertised" is just a special case of "AI is not as advertised", i.e., the least surprising turn of events.
Wojciakowski took the critiques on board. “Wow, tough crowd … I’ve learned today that you are sensitive to ensuring human readability.”
Christ, what an asshole.
Those are the actors who played Duncan Idaho in the David Lynch adaptation and in the two Syfy miniseries. So, yeah, it's not wrong, just incomplete — though I have no idea why it only serves up those three. There's certainly no limitation to three images, as can be verified by searching for "Sherlock Holmes actor" or the like.
Sneers from r/physics! First up, this comment by napqe:
I'm sorry, but this is like awarding the nobel prize for literature to Xerox/HP/Brother for "improvements to printing".
And in the same thread, from GustapheOfficial:
Last year's prize was too relevant, they had to stagger the physics by a year.
We also have this by M1st_:
What's next? Someone gets a Nobel prize for another algorithm that numerically solves differential equations??
Finally, we've the title of this thread, by TheSkells:
Yeah, "physics"
an hackernews:
a high correlation between intelligence and IQ
motherfuckers out here acting like "intelligence" is sufficiently well-defined that a correlation between it and anything else can be computed
intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"
eat a bag of dicks
"The time has come to stand up for Little Tech" —venture capital firm with $42 billion in assets under management
Some of Kurzweil's predictions in 1999 about 2009:
Carl T. Bergstrom, 13 February 2023:
Meta. OpenAI. Google.
Your AI chatbot is not hallucinating.
It's bullshitting.
It's bullshitting, because that's what you designed it to do. You designed it to generate seemingly authoritative text "with a blatant disregard for truth and logical coherence," i.e., to bullshit.
I confess myself a bit baffled by people who act like "how to interact with ChatGPT" is a useful classroom skill. It's not a word processor or a spreadsheet; it doesn't have documented, well-defined, reproducible behaviors. No, it's not remotely analogous to a calculator. Calculators are built to be right, not to sound convincing. It's a bullshit fountain. Stop acting like you're a waterbender making emotive shapes by expressing your will in the medium of liquid bullshit. The lesson one needs about a bullshit fountain is not to swim in it.
To date, the largest working nuclear reactor constructed entirely of cheese is the 160 MWe Unit 1 reactor of the French nuclear plant École nationale de technologie supérieure (ENTS).
"That's it! Gromit, we'll make the reactor out of cheese!"
What if we used different words in a different context? Wouldn't the meaning change? Checkmate atheists
Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody's paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn't get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, "The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels." And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to "People read."
Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:
I also remark that the human equivalent of a utility function, not that we actually have one, often revolves around desires whose frustration produces pain.
Ah. People don't like to hurt.
Fuck you.
Signed,
a physicist