Calculators give wrong answers all the time. The differentiator from AI is that you can trust that a garbage answer from a calculator was caused by bad input, where bad AI answers aren't debuggable.
>Yes, but the machine itself is deterministic and logically sound.
Because arithmetic itself, by definition, is.
Human language is not. Which is why being able to talk to our computers in natural language (and have them understand us and talk back) now is nothing short of science fiction come true.
My point is, needing to use something with care doesn't prevent it becoming from wildly successful. LLM's are wrong way more often but are also more versatile than a calculator.
> LLM's are wrong way more often but are also more versatile than a calculator.
LLMs are wrong infinitely more than calculators, because calculators are never wrong (unless they're broken).
If you input "1 + 3" into your calculator and get "4", but you actually wanted to know the answer to "1 + 2", the calculator wasn't "wrong". It gave you the answer to the question you asked.
Now you might say "but that's what's happening with LLMs too! It gave you the wrong answer because you didn't ask the question right!" But an LLM isn't an all-seeing oracle. It can only interpolate between points in its training data. And if the correct answer isn't in its training data, then no amount of "using it with care" will produce the correct answer.
There's no such thing as a correct result to a search query. It certainly delivered exactly what was asked for, a grep of the web, sorted by number of incoming links.
They also don't use it at all anymore, they barely even care about your search query.
Google is successful, however, because they innovated once, and got enough money together as a result to buy Doubleclick. Combining their one innovation with the ad company they bought enabled them to buy other companies.
Did you learn how to do long division in schools? I did, and I wasn't allowed to use calculators on a test until I was in highschool and basic math wasn't what was being taught or evaluated.
Last week I entered the elevator in my apartment building and there were two women who started laughing and proclaimed “whoops we didn’t hit L”. I immediately replied “if that’s the worst thing that happens to you today you’re doing alright”. Followed by them replying “or it’s the beginning of a Dateline tragedy”.
We all had a good laugh then she introduced herself as the mother of the other woman who happened to be very attractive. We continued chatting and exchanged contact info.
I’m not sure anything will come of it but I do know that I had a much more pleasant and serendipitous elevator experience because instead of just smiling after they admitted their mistake, I threw out a silly reply which turned into what it did.
One of my biggest issues with American suburbia and car dependence is the much smaller percentage of reasonable opportunities for serendipity vs my old Spanish hometown.
This is for you and everyone reading, focus on making a friend first, not saying take it slow. If love blossoms great but if not maybe one of you two can meet someone via the friendship. I met my wife via a woman I met at a party. We went out a few times without any chemistry but I went to the beach w her and some friends and have been w my wife now 28 years. The rule for dating should be like camping "leave it (them) better than you found it (them)".
thanks! we've tried to do an ai + dating episode but havent really found the right angle. i think an alternative to status quo is desperately needed for the sake of human population but also economy
Returning to the main topic: the problem with networking is that the scale of sellers is much greater than the buyers, and those networks have hierarchies difficult to penetrate.
As someone from Spain, I asked an LLM about the L button and the Dateline tragedy just to assess how witty the situation was, it seems shared culture played big here. Also, I looked up about the serendipity reference, and there is a love film of 2001 in which elevator plays a romantic role. In my mostly scientific life L button, Dateline and serendipity has different meaning, furthermore luck and romance occupy infinitesimal space. To stay on topic, I really hope you luck and romance.
“ This is why we can't have the government file taxes on our behalf: because Intuit would no longer be collecting rent, and rent-collecting must be protected at all costs. ”
AKA The Shirky principle, which was discussed in great depth last week
Vitamix blenders are 8-10x the cost of a normal blender and have a cult like following. With the right branding home appliances can also double as a status symbol in American kitchens.
This is the typical market dynamic. The high end (Vitamix) is a bit more than twice the mid-range option, and then there is a long tail going way way down.
I agree a $1300 blender (ie, 8 * $165) is a luxury play. But Vitamix seems more just a normal high-end quality play rather than luxury. Their most expensive blender is $729 list price[2] but comes with a bunch of extra features (wireless jug detection?!) to justify the cost. Luxury brands don't try to justify costs: the cost is the feature.
Nicky Rodriguez, a life long wrestler was beating world class black belts in only a year of training. We had a D1 wrestler join our gym and after the first week was awarded a blue belt (usually takes 2-3 years).
They won’t know many submissions, and initially are more susceptible to exposing their back (in wrestling being on your back is the worst possible outcome where in jiu jitsu it’s an offensive position), but at the end of the day grappling is grappling.
Nicky Rod is also a big exception. D1 wrestlers are a small % of all wrestlers. Most wrestlers I encounter are like good white belts, but they have a ton of bad habits like you mentioned. Wrestlers do alright in BJJ though, for sure. They have a good sense of bodies and weight, though I have seen it hinder some wrestlers who stay in their comfort zone and never branch out, eventually losing out to folks who focus more on BJJ technique.
Yeah that’s fair, the same can be said about really strong people who only rely on strength. They seem really good initially but 5 years later they are still just trying their Americanas from inside someone’s closed guard.
