echodot

Experience navigators with some basic tools often ended up hundreds and hundreds of miles off course because they had no reference points. If you're navigation system is landmarks plus a sextant then it's not going to be very accurate.

When you're trying to transit the ocean one nautical miles worth of accuracy isn't bad, especially if the alternative is to use a potentially compromised GPS or a 15th century navigation tool.

It's a bit obvious that isn't it. Hey captain there appears to be a ship with a giant boulder on board and it's following us around, do you think that might be relevant?

The fact that it lies is so irritating, if it at least admitted that it didn't know the answer it would at least be a useful search engine. The fact that it makes stuff up though means I always have to scroll past the AI summary, that I didn't ask for, in order to actually go to the website to check the results myself, because I can't trust it.

Yeah because it was impossible to Google things in the past. Every time anybody comes up with a use for AI it's basically just automating something that isn't even that hard for you to do. If you want to automate simple tasks that's absolutely fine but it's not the second coming as people keep insisting.

Come back to me when an AI can actually add value to something, when it can do something that is not just automating a simple task, but it's capable of doing things that humans are not. I keep being told that we're only a few years away from the technological singularity, so wake me up when we actually get there.

It's an expensive toy that might become a viable product in a decade that doesn't mean it's a valuable company today. Irresponsible spending like this is exactly what led to the dot com bubble.

So they are just slapping random price tags on things now. It's a database of AI questions. They have paid 13 billion dollars for a database, and everyone's acting like that's a perfectly rational sensible thing to do. No one in the financial industry has any sense anymore.

A company that's only product is something that people either don't want or actively hate has paid an eye-watering amount of money for a database to train their product on, this training will have no effect whatsoever on whether people want it.

I have this nice bridge with lots of training examples if anybody's interested, 100 trillion dollars please

I think they mean violence isn't the first thing you reach for. There's a real problem in the world, and especially in the US, where the moment someone is even moderately upset about something they immediately start pulling weapons.

You should always attempt to negotiate and de-escalate the situation. Violence is something you should reach for only after it becomes abundantly evident that they are not prepared to meet you halfway or are just obviously corrupt, like is the case here.

But you never know, some of the officials may just be really stupid and have not thought about the project beyond the immediate benefits, and haven't thought about/don't know about the downside.

I really need to get into local government because there seems to be a lot of bribes going around and I need a new computer.

I've never heard of this organization before but I already like them. Perhaps I'll join, I've always wanted to see what he left wing terrorist looks like.

All be it an incredibly embarrassing one.

It's like a religious calling to all C-suite executives. Number have to go up, a flatline is bad. So costs are cut even to the detriment of the product, even though the cost savings are negligible and the detriment to the product significant.

The bar my girlfriend works out has preemptively banned them. They haven't actually had an issue with them but management feel that banning them is good advertising. It probably is too.