Yeah I remember using it back in the day and getting good results.
> Unlike early keyword-based engines, it aimed to answer specific questions, acting as a precursor to modern AI assistants like Siri or ChatGPT.
> Ask Jeeves (now Ask.com) was an early search engine launched in 1996 that allowed users to get answers via natural language queries, personified by a cartoon butler mascot. Developed by Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, it focused on Q&A rather than just keywords.
I take the prompts to the AI so the manager doesn't have to! I have prompting skills!!
I just can't make the joke work. There really are people that think they can get paid to press the agent's on button. How long before their checks stop clearing and it "just works itself out naturally"?
That's literally how some Meta AI jobs looked a few years back - set up a few parameters, push a button, wait until training and evals are finished; repeat if. needed. $500k+/year.
> I take the prompts to the AI so the manager doesn't have to! I have prompting skills!!
This is honestly the mindset of the people on here who proudly proclaim that they haven't written a line of code in six months and are excited about what programming is "evolving" into. Naturally, _their_ AI skills aren't something that an "idea guy" can use to build a product without looping in a developer, so _his_ job is safe and will never go away -- "I understand system design, an LLM will never be able to do that!" Sure thing buddy.
That's not what I said. I said system design is not the exclusive domain of humans, so anyone thinking they possess some special knowledge of system design that an LLM isn't capable of obtaining are fooling themselves.
Yeah I wish AI didn’t try to agree with you so much. It’s ok to just say “No that’s not correct at all.” I do find Gemini better at this than ChatGPT. ChatGPT is that annoying coworker that just agrees with everything you say to get in good with you, like Nard Dog from The Office.
“I'll be the number two guy here in Scranton in six weeks. How? Name repetition, personality mirroring, and never breaking off a handshake"
I need to see stats on how many would be expected to die or disappear from natural causes and I’m never seeing that on these stories. Weird things happen all the time to people in any field of work, it’s only concerning if this is rising above the natural noise. The fact that the current administration, which has proven time and time again it is ignorant about statistics and pretty much all things science, is raising the alarm does not bode well for this being an actual issue.
Via [0], "Well, there are about 2 million researchers in the US. There are about 25 deaths per million people per day in the US, that’s 50 scientists dying each day, or 73,000 scientists over a four year period. Finding 11 that have some vague connection does not seem unusual to me."
"I should point out I am using numbers for the general population, which may not match the rate for scientists. [...] I also looked at CDC data – about 800,000 people in the US between 25 and 65 die each year [...] About 6% of the population work in the science field, which would be 192,000, or half that if you use a narrow definition of 3%, so close to the 73,000 figure I calculated the other way."
He also looks at how that compares with the individual institutions.
But then if we're doing age ranges, the 10 people "tied to sensitive research" who have disappeared or died are 59, 61, 60, 68, 53, 60, 78, 47, 67, 39 (with the two youngest identified as homicide and suicide). How does a cohort with an average age in their 60s compare with the age range of actively practising researchers?
I agree, my point was more along the lines the poster demanding rigour wanted to use the death rates for the entire age range of "actively practising researchers" as a comparison baseline for a group of people averaging in their 60s. Don't even need the look at CDC data to know that they die more than the average working age person...
Any side effect goes away if you reduce the dosage sufficiently. In the recent Harvard study the dose was very small when you convert it to a human equivalent dose.
I took lithium for <redacted tendancy> it got to my kidneys never thought of more generally microdosing lithium. Interesting. Full dose yeah flat and sleepy. Not sure it was the reason for flat out brain rot. (Other factors were available maybe just getting older.) Full dose needs blood tests as overdose weirdly bad. From <relative> due to dehydration / holiday in the sun looked like almost drunk but not drinking slopy etc. Slightly clingy desparate for interaction with strangers. <Other factors could have been available>. Not informed of damage relative seemed to recover ok. <Nationalised medical system>.
What’s the indicator for AGI now? We are so far past the Turing Test it isn’t funny. In fact the models now are too intelligent, you would never think a human would have that much knowledge quickly about a subject you chose at random.
> Unlike early keyword-based engines, it aimed to answer specific questions, acting as a precursor to modern AI assistants like Siri or ChatGPT.
> Ask Jeeves (now Ask.com) was an early search engine launched in 1996 that allowed users to get answers via natural language queries, personified by a cartoon butler mascot. Developed by Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, it focused on Q&A rather than just keywords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.com
reply