There is not enough activity to sustain niche communities.

In this case it is more a feature being called a bug

I agree, it's a massive issue. It's a very complex topic that most people have no way of understanding. It is superb at generating text, and that makes it look smarter than it actually is, which is really dangerous. I think the creators of these models have a responsibility to communicate what these models can and can't do, but unfortunately that is not profitable.

It's not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)

It's not a bug, it's a natural consequence of the methodology. A language model won't always be correct when it doesn't know what it is saying.

How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.

Because if we weren't then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn't relevant until you start on your PhD.

Meta holds the record for the largest gdpr fine at 1,2 billion euro.

From a logical perspective that implication is true, choosing your sexuality implies you have a choice. However, I disagree with the premise that there is a choice to begin with.

I do not choose to be straight, I just am. I'm not gay, and no amount of choosing will change that. I'm a guy, and I can choose to look for a boyfriend, but it won't change the fact that I'm attracted to women. Now maybe I discover that I'm actually attracted to both men and women, but I would argue that discovering is different from choosing. Choosing would mean that I can choose to not be attracted to a gender, which I can't. I can only choose whether or not I act on it.

It's easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.

I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.

Shrinkflation still happens, you just get to watch two numbers go up now.

No one sane is arguing that an expensive mechanical watch is better at telling the time than a cheap quartz watch. If you want accuracy, don't buy a rolex.

Personally, I think a fancy watch is more comparable to buying an art piece. A painting is not "superior" just because it portraits its subject with more accuracy. Similarly, a watch is not "superior" if it tells the time with more accuracy.

I wear a watch because I like the watch. I like a mechanical watch with an open back so I can look at the gears turning inside. I like the attention to detail in the design. I like how the little hour indicators are polished to a mirror finish. For me, it is a piece of jewelry, that also tells the time.