Man that video irks me. She is conflating AI with AGI. I think a lot of people are watching that video and spouting out what she says as fact. Yet her basic assertion is incorrect because she isn't using the right terminology. If she explained that up front, the video would be way more accurate. She almost goes there but stops short. I would also accept her saying that her definition of AI is anything a human can do that a computer currently can't. I'm not a fan of that definition but it has been widely used for decades. I much prefer delineating AI vs AGI. Anyway this is the first time I watched the video and it explains a lot of the confidently wrong comments on AI I've seen lately. Also please don't take your AI information from an astrophysicist, even if they use AI at work. Get it from an expert in the field.

Anyway, ChatGPT is AI. It is not AGI though per recent papers, it is getting closer.

For anyone who doesn't know the abbreviation, AGI is Artificial General Intelligence or human level intelligence in a machine. ASI is Artificial Super Intelligence which is beyond human level and the really scary stuff in movies.

GPT-4 cannot alter its weights once it has been trained so this is just factually wrong.

The bit you quoted is referring to training.

They are not intelligent. They create text based on inputs. That is not what intelligence is, unless you have an extremely dismal view of intelligence that humans are text creation machines with no thoughts, no feelings, no desires, no ability to plan... basically, no internal world at all.

Recent papers say otherwise.

The conclusion the author of that article comes to (LLMs can understand animal language) is.. problematic at the very least. I don't know how they expect that to happen.

Check out this recent paper that finds some evidence that LLMs aren't just stochastic parrots. They actually develop internal models of things.

Wikipedia: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.

I think you may be off a bit on what a derivative work is. I don't see LLMs spouting out major copyrightable elements of books. They can give a summary sure, but Cliff Notes would like to have a word if you think that's copyright infringement.

What's with all the hit jobs on ChatGPT?

Prompts were input to the GPT-3.5-turbo-0301 model via the ChatGPT (OpenAI) interface.

This is the second paper I've seen recently to complain ChatGPT is crap and be using GPT3.5. There is a world of difference between 3.5 and 4. Unfortunately news sites aren't savvy enough to pick up on that and just run with "ChatGPT sucks!" Also it's not even ChatGPT if they're using that model. The paper is wrong (or it's old) because there's no way to use that model in the ChatGPT interface. I don't think there ever was either. It was probably ChatGPT 0301 or something which is (afaik) slightly different.

Anyway, tldr, paper is similar to "I tried running Diablo 4 on my Windows 95 computer and it didn't work. Surprised Pikachu!"

Wait a second here... I skimmed the paper and GitHub and didn't find an answer to a very important question: is this GPT3.5 or 4? There's a huge difference in code quality between the two and either they made a giant accidental omission or they are being intentionally misleading. Please correct me if I missed where they specified that. I'm assuming they were using GPT3.5, so yeah those results would be as expected. On the HumanEval benchmark, GPT4 gets 67% and that goes up to 90% with reflexion prompting. GPT3.5 gets 48.1%, which is exactly what this paper is saying. (source).

All the articles about this I've seen are missing something. Netflix has been using machine learning in a bunch of ways for quite a few years. I bet this position they're hiring for has been around for most of that time and isn't some new "replace all actors and writers with AI" thing. Here's an article from 2019 talking about how they use AI. That was the oldest I could find but someone I know was working on ML at Netflix over a decade ago.

What I wonder is why more cars don't have HUDs that are projected onto the windshield. That tech has been around and in cars for over 25 years. You don't have to take your eyes off the road at all.

I've been working on an autonomous AI helper that can take on tasks. You can give it whatever personality you like along with a job description and it will work on tasks either based on what you ask it or whatever it decides needs to be done based on the job description. Basically the AI in the movie Her without the romantic part.

Etsy employee #3 or so here but haven't worked there in more than a decade. Rob is a great guy, but I don't think he could have grown Etsy the way it has. I'm sure some people will say that's not a bad thing but my response is you probably wouldn't know about Etsy if he stayed on.

I think on the whole, the new CEO has done more good than bad for the company. They've always had criticism of non handmade stuff being sold on there. I think they could do more to that end, and if the video is right that the new CEO is allowing non handmade stuff on there, I don't agree with him on that. I haven't seen that myself and I do still use the site. While he's made other decisions I don't agree with, encouraging sellers to do free shipping was a good move. Many buyers expect that thanks to Amazon. The fee increases while for sure had an impact on sellers bottom lines, don't compare to what Amazon Handmade (if that still exists) and ebay charge (not to get into most other marketplaces like the app stores that charge 30%). The current CEO in my opinion understands Etsy way more than the other two they had after Rob was out.

Also in terms of Fred Wilson, she should have done a little more homework on him. He was one of the original investors. He understands Etsy. He's also entitled to some return for making a very risky investment on 4 kids (they were like 20 when they started it). I haven't spoken to Fred in some time so maybe he's changed, but I doubt it.

Anyway, I don't mean to be so negative about the video, but I also don't think Etsy has lost its way as much as the video implies. Granted I am not a seller, just a user at this point.

From ChatGPT 4:

Yes, the box is awesome.

According to the provided statements, the box is yellow and red.

"If the box is yellow, it is good." - So, since the box is yellow, it is good.

"If the box is red, it is happy." - And since the box is red, it is happy.

Finally, "If the box is good and happy, the box is awesome." - Therefore, because the box is both good (due to being yellow) and happy (due to being red), the box is indeed awesome.

It's just so tone deaf. And he's totally lying about users not supporting the blackout. All the subreddits I was on where the mods asked people what they wanted to do, most of the comments were in favor of keeping them dark indefinitely. The rest were agreeing to the blackout in general. I don't remember seeing a single person objecting.