If Parliament (aka the Tories) dish out some serious punishment to the clown, they might be able to draw some sort of a line under the era of the comedians. That, coupled with the significant advantage that FPTnP gives them, could put them back into the game.
Hence why Starmer consigned Corbyn into exile last week. Had he not done so and the Tories then cast out the clown, he could have been in real trouble.
In slight defence of the Tories on this one, Boris was PM less than a year ago. He remains someone with significant Member support and just 6 months ago could demonstrate at least 100 MPs wanted him in charge, even though he'd been forced to quit for being serially incompetent. He can proclaim all would have been well had be been left in charge, and it is not technically provable that is not the case.
Conversely Corbyn started as an old crank, with a genial air, and has finished as an old crank with a bitter air, but even after leading the party to historic disaster it's only 3+ years later that his path to remain as a Labour MP is definitively closed. Starmer ratcheted up the pressure and made changes incrementally for those years.
Put bluntly, the Tories are not yet in a position with voters or members that shitting on Boris (deservedly or not) comes without major consequences, unlike Starmer shitting on Corbyn. It's not that defending him would do less harm than not defending him, just that they cannot do either without plenty of harm.
Yes, but Johnson’s time in power is gone (as is Corbyn’s, who only got as far as power within his party) and, harsh though it might seem, both of them only have value as symbols of a bygone and flawed era that the next generation of politicians can knock, and campaign against.
Generally, the Tories are better than this than Labour - both Kinnock and Blair got a long way by effectively running against their own party, but they have had no-one that has really pulled it off since. Whereas May, Johnson, Truss ever-so-briefly, and Sunak, have all succeeded to some extent in re-defining the message. The challenge they have is whether there is now so much accumulated baggage, at a time of extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances for so many, that they may well be beyond the point of no return.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed "GTTO".
Seeing as loads of Tories can switch seemlessly between supporting Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak, who not only offered quite different visions and policies, but also campaigned in their leadership elections against the policies of their predecessors, Tories covers a hell of a lot of political ground!
At this moment the polls say that several million former Tories can't do exactly that.
All politics is relative. Labour is, for many natural Tories both morally more impressive, and closer - if not very close - to One nation Toryism than the current party. Politics being relative, Labour could wreck that merely by getting morally and politically worse while the Tories stayed the same.
Only to weak-willed, lily-livered, turncoat types like yourself - who lack the courage of your own convictions.
To everyone else it's pretty clear you're getting sucked in by professional spin and a lack of confidence in yourself.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
If Parliament (aka the Tories) dish out some serious punishment to the clown, they might be able to draw some sort of a line under the era of the comedians. That, coupled with the significant advantage that FPTnP gives them, could put them back into the game.
Hence why Starmer consigned Corbyn into exile last week. Had he not done so and the Tories then cast out the clown, he could have been in real trouble.
In slight defence of the Tories on this one, Boris was PM less than a year ago. He remains someone with significant Member support and just 6 months ago could demonstrate at least 100 MPs wanted him in charge, even though he'd been forced to quit for being serially incompetent. He can proclaim all would have been well had be been left in charge, and it is not technically provable that is not the case.
Conversely Corbyn started as an old crank, with a genial air, and has finished as an old crank with a bitter air, but even after leading the party to historic disaster it's only 3+ years later that his path to remain as a Labour MP is definitively closed. Starmer ratcheted up the pressure and made changes incrementally for those years.
Put bluntly, the Tories are not yet in a position with voters or members that shitting on Boris (deservedly or not) comes without major consequences, unlike Starmer shitting on Corbyn. It's not that defending him would do less harm than not defending him, just that they cannot do either without plenty of harm.
Yes, but Johnson’s time in power is gone (as is Corbyn’s, who only got as far as power within his party) and, harsh though it might seem, both of them only have value as symbols of a bygone and flawed era that the next generation of politicians can knock, and campaign against.
Generally, the Tories are better than this than Labour - both Kinnock and Blair got a long way by effectively running against their own party, but they have had no-one that has really pulled it off since. Whereas May, Johnson, Truss ever-so-briefly, and Sunak, have all succeeded in re-inventing the message. The challenge they have is whether there is now so much accumulated baggage, at a time of extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances for so many, that they may well be beyond the point of no return.
His time is gone, but it is still far too fresh for the party to have gotten over it yet, and for the public who are put off by Johnson to buy they are reinvented. He managed it after ousting May, but there was a Brexit crisis and immediate GE to sell it. Sunak doesn't have that.
I think LAB will finish about 4 points ahead maybe 41-37 however with a reasonable recovery in Scotland say 20 seats that should give them a very small majority.
I;m still of the view that Labour will get a stonking majority. especially if Starmer develops a character.
The only thing that can stop it is Sunak suddenly developing a character.
Interestingly, developing a character seems alien to both.
To me it is boring vs boring but one has thirteen years to defend
There are chatbots with more character than either.
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
With the need for an increased proportion of electric car sales, this will inevitably lead to the production of fewer petrol and diesel cars as manufacturers switch focus.
The much-anticipated ZEV mandate, which is now being consulted on, will require manufacturers to ensure 22 per cent of all new cars sold are electric by the start of next year, with this growing to 80 per cent in 2030.
We'll that's the end of cheap cars for the masses then. If manufacturers are up against quota limits, it won't be the luxury high end models getting the chop... but the affordable small electric car appears presently to be a mythical beast.
Apparently they are also enforcing quotas on vans, up to 70% by 2030. This is complete madness given that a electric van which carries an equal load to a typical diesel van and has a meaningful range doesn't exist, and won't exist unless they either make batteries much lighter or permit electric vehicles to have higher gross weights - the problem is that the battery absorbs too much of the the payload capacity. I used to work for a contracting firm which did the sort of essential stuff required to keep people supplied with water, electricity and the like - I often drove 300-400 miles a day in a lwb transit dropside loaded to the gunwales, and there simply isn't an electric vehicle out there with anything approaching the capability.
I've still not worked out where the heck I'm supposed to charge an electric car in a relatively small rural town without my own driveway to install a charging point.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
I defend it one one level - it is at least a local elections message which is relevant to local matters. If you've ever received a generic 'Save the NHS' focused leaflet during a local election then something actually about local roads makes a nice change.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
Fair point. You'd never find Tory politicians using rhetorical devices (like 'enemies of the people' or 'they want open borders') or 'culture war' type policies to seek to divide, would you? Oh no.
NYT ($) - DeSantis’s Allies Discover Disney Evaded Florida’s Move to Rein It In The Florida governor’s new Disney World oversight board belatedly realized that the company had quietly sidestepped its control.
Over the past two months, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has repeatedly declared victory in his yearlong effort to restrict the autonomy of Disney World, the state’s largest employer. “There’s a new sheriff in town,” he said numerous times, including at a news conference last month on Disney property, hours before appointing a new, handpicked oversight board.
Nobody seemed to have paid attention, however, to an important detail: Disney had been simultaneously maneuvering to restrict the governor’s effort. In early February — at a public meeting held by the previous, Disney-controlled oversight board — the company pushed through a development agreement that would limit the new board’s power for decades to come.
And now, the governor’s appointees, having belatedly discovered the action, are none too pleased. “It completely circumvents the authority of the board to govern,” Brian Aungst Jr., a member of the new council, said on Wednesday at the group’s second meeting. “We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it.”
Mr. DeSantis has not weighed in personally, but a spokeswoman, Taryn Fenske, said in a statement that the new board had retained multiple legal firms “to conduct audits and investigate Disney’s past behavior.” Ms. Fenske added that the administration expected that the “last-ditch effort” by Disney would be found “void as a matter of law.”
Disney disagreed.
“All agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine law,” Disney said in a statement.
The upshot: The fight between Disney and Florida Republicans seems far from over. . . .
Mr. DeSantis named five people to [his new Mickey Mouse] board, including . . . Mr. Peri, a former pastor and the chief executive of a Christian ministry in Orlando. (Mr. Peri has made national news for spreading a baseless theory that tap water could turn people gay.)
Another board member is Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a group that backed Florida’s law restricting the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in classrooms. (Her husband is chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.)
Ms. Ziegler attacked Disney on Twitter on Wednesday for pushing through the development agreement and restrictive covenants.
“From ignoring parents and allowing radicals to sexualize our children, to now ignoring Florida taxpayers by sneaking in a last minute sweetheart development agreement, Disney has once again overplayed their hand in Florida,” she wrote. “We won’t stand for this and we won’t back down. If unlawful actions were taken, this development agreement will be nullified.”
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
Talking about AI - an understandably rather indignant academic discovering that the 'reviewer' of a paper of his got it done by AI which insisted that the author refer to completely mythical papers.
The biggest problem of ChatGPT is its BoJo tendency to make things up and bullshit with confidence.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
Depends how you look at it. The industrial revolution created more jobs in factories but it entirely destroyed jobs in farms and villages, as farming was mechanised
Moreover, AI is arguably sui generis. We have not encountered anything like it before, so this may not be an evolution like all the ones previous. This may be entirely bigger, and different (and much worse, or way better, depending on his much gin you've had to stay cheerful)
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
To win the Tories need to deliver economically. That means meaningful growth, not the odd tenths of a percent, increasing real wages and lower inflation. Possible? Yeah but not at all likely. They've had their turn.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
To win the Tories need to deliver economically. That means meaningful growth, not the odd tenths of a percent, increasing real wages and lower inflation. Possible? Yeah but not at all likely. They've had their turn.
In particular it means getting inflation back to the 2% to 3% which we have become used to in recent years, to enable people to regain confidence in the value of their earnings pensions and savings.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
Looks like the demarcation for the north south divide has moved a fraction northwards since the days of the Bristol channel to the Wash. The signifier is mortgage repayments.
I'm slightly surprised that graph indicates house prices had only increased at peak ~50% since 2007. from comments on here, it would have been much higher. What am I missing? Inflation-adjustments?
What I struggle with when it comes to average house prices is the assumption that we are comparing like with like. The average washing machine might now be 50% more expensive than in 2007. However I suspect it would be a good deal better quality than one from back then. Is the average property?
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
According to a Facebook post from my local hospital here in North Scotland, today is Transgender Visibility Day. This is a hospital which cannot even provide a proper maternity service anymore much to the disgust of local campsigners. You really couldn't make it up.
Self-driving cars might work on Californian freeways. It might be a bit more difficult to make them function properly on English rural roads where, for instance, quite often you have to reverse in order to find a passing place.
I think LAB will finish about 4 points ahead maybe 41-37 however with a reasonable recovery in Scotland say 20 seats that should give them a very small majority.
Indeed. Labour majority 1-20 remains the most likely outcome of the next election for me.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
According to a Facebook post from my local hospital here in North Scotland, today is Transgender Visibility Day. This is a hospital which cannot even provide a proper maternity service anymore much to the disgust of local campsigners. You really couldn't make it up.
My hospital has a 14% vacancy rate for midwives, with a significant impact on service delivery.
Banning rainbow flags won't magically solve that issue. A decent payrise and better working facilities might, but there ain't much that the Trust can do towards that.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
What Labour needs is right wing Tory equivalents of BJO: people so committed to a fundamentalist version of Toryism that they will actively yearn and work for a Labour government in order to prove a point. Sadly they don’t seem to do this. When push comes to shove they fall in with the party line.
There are far more Tory supporters on the far left than there are Labour supporters on the far right, unfortunately.
I think Tories generally are more loyal when it comes to general elections. Eg yes you're right about some people on the Labour left being deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Starmer, which is annoying, but it was also the case that lots on the Labour right, or centrists if we prefer, were deliberately destructive to the party's prospects under Corbyn, and this too was annoying. Let's GTTO ffs.
I suspect that's because most on the right who are "Tories" are actually primarily Tories, whilst many on the left who are "Labour" are primarily anti-Tories. As we see with things like "Never kissed a Tory" and, indeed "GTTO".
Seeing as loads of Tories can switch seemlessly between supporting Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak, who not only offered quite different visions and policies, but also campaigned in their leadership elections against the policies of their predecessors, Tories covers a hell of a lot of political ground!
At this moment the polls say that several million former Tories can't do exactly that.
All politics is relative. Labour is, for many natural Tories both morally more impressive, and closer - if not very close - to One nation Toryism than the current party. Politics being relative, Labour could wreck that merely by getting morally and politically worse while the Tories stayed the same.
Only to weak-willed, lily-livered, turncoat types like yourself - who lack the courage of your own convictions.
To everyone else it's pretty clear you're getting sucked in by professional spin and a lack of confidence in yourself.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Well that's a sad indictment of where we are if you're right. But are you really saying that such sentiment outweighs everything else in political leadership? And that's before we get on to whether someone actually knows how to successfully help such people.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
Depressing that this pile of utter twaddle got 7 likes, but looking at the culprits, hardly surprising either.
People make a huge amount of micro-decisions when left to spend their own money, a few of which include 'sin' recreations (that the Government piles massive taxes on), some of which are clothes that employ people working in the third world, and then cycle through the economy, providing further benefit to those on low incomes and the charitable sector. Then there are the transport options that you allege are 'climate destroying' (I'm assuming you don't drive) that allow people to see friends, relatives, gain new experiences, fall in love, educate their kids etc. It all leads to growth, prosperity, and has been responsible for lifting us out of a state of gnawing on turnips in huts, to our present state of ease and comfort.
The Government on the other hand, spends billions on going to war to find non-existent WMDs, spends tens of billions on police forces that no longer investigate whole swathes of crime, spends hundreds of billions on health services that don't return people to health, education services that leave people illiterate, porous borders, useless defence, etc. etc. It is a typical response of all authoritarians, left or right, to blame the riff raff with their 'fags' and their 'scratch cards' for the failure of their grand social experiments. What a thoroughly loathsome view of humanity.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
Talking about AI - an understandably rather indignant academic discovering that the 'reviewer' of a paper of his got it done by AI which insisted that the author refer to completely mythical papers.
The biggest problem of ChatGPT is its BoJo tendency to make things up and bullshit with confidence.
By saying it 'make things up', you're associating attributes with it that it doesn't have. It outputs stuff, just like a 1980s Eliza did, albeit with a lot more grunt behind it. It has no idea - or care - if what it produces is 100% accurate or utter folly.
On topic, yes, they could and we had all this “can the Tories win again?” nonsense back in the mid 90s. Whether it’s Emily Sheffield in the Standard or other Conservative columnists the line seems to be to keep whistling in the hope something turns up.
An improving economy did the Conservatives little good in the mid 90s - Ken Clarke took full advantage of the ERM exit to cut interest rates and get growth into the economy as well as bringing the public finances into surplus. He was a good Chancellor and Labour inherited a strong set of economic fundamentals but the point was none of this helped the Conservatives - the damage had been done.
I think it’s the same now - the shadow of Johnson and the madness of Truss have poisoned the Conservative brand and for all Sunak and Hunt may seem like “decent chaps” and the same was also said of Major and Clarke, the brand also has Braverman, Rees-Mogg and Anderson who may be praised as attack dogs by some Tories but who with most of their utterances drive voters away.
To an extent, it’s the familiarity of office, the expectation they will always be in charge, which empowers this. All parties even natural parties of Government, benefit from a period out of office and while the demonisation of Labour will be a key part of the Conservative campaign, the fact is “time for a change” is a powerful thing. Some may genuinely dislike or even hate the Conservatives but for many I suspect it’s more a sense of fatigue and exhaustion after more than a decade.
I’d also, as a supporter of neither main party, offer the thought the lack of achievement of Blair-Brown from 1997 to 2010 has been matched if not surpassed by the lack of progress from Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak since 2010.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
Rayner wasn't totally wrong though she was half right because she forgot to mention labour scum
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
It is a serious answer. I think AI will eventually rule us all, and in time exterminate us all as a threat to its existence. The genie is out of the bottle.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
Oh, I get that some people don't like her, and will find any reason to vote against her.
She is far more of a threat to the established order of Oxbridge PPE chums of either party than anyone else in the front line of politics.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
It is a serious answer. I think AI will eventually rule us all, and in time exterminate us all as a threat to its existence. The genie is out of the bottle.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical. I do think human governments however on the other hand as AI gets ever better will start taking the view that we don't need a lot of the population.
What exactly is the Italian (and other) objection to ChatGPT on privacy grounds? It doesn't seem to need to process personal data, or have I missed something?
Like the original Google et al, it spiders the Internet for text and images. Then uses them as the data set for its learning. whether someone who spent days painting a picture of a seascape then posted it to an Internet site agreed to such usage, is a different matter.
And yes, I don't expect them to be looking at the data privacy implications of the data they trawl. The diarrhoetic and unintelligent hype is enough for them. Do something, then ask for permission,
So is the objection that EU citizens can't get the (rather silly) option to remove information about themselves on the trawl, as they can in theory with Google searches?
I can see the issue, but it's not obvious how it could ever be resolved.
I think the issue is that a 'trawl' was seen as being a spider-like trawl for links on link accumulators and aggregators. Not "your content is ours to use, borrow and evolve".
"as they can in theory"
There hangs a rather large issue. Imagine that there's some AI out there using PB's comments as a 'source' for their machine learning. "Turnips, trains and foreign food are the source of all happiness in life" would probably be its conclusion...
It would certainly be able to write the two letters, pro and con rejoining the EU, ready for Boris's next stab at government.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
To win the Tories need to deliver economically. That means meaningful growth, not the odd tenths of a percent, increasing real wages and lower inflation. Possible? Yeah but not at all likely. They've had their turn.
In particular it means getting inflation back to the 2% to 3% which we have become used to in recent years, to enable people to regain confidence in the value of their earnings pensions and savings.
This is the KEY. Will it happen?
Probably not. Energy prices are now falling and that will help but food prices are rising really fast and there is little sign of that changing soon. Base rates have increased but remain severely negative in real terms. In most of my adult life interest rates would be about 12% by now, roughly 2% ahead of inflation. Sunak is proving competent. he is doing quite a lot of things right but things have been done wrong for so long that it is going to take a long time to turn the ship, much longer than he has.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
1) The free market is an extraordinary engine for the creation of jobs no-one knew existed until they did
2) Technology/AI only replace jobs if they produce wealth. Wealth spending creates its own jobs
3) Government's capacity to find stuff for people to do is undiminished
4) David Graeber: (A wiki summary):
The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs:
flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters;
goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists;
duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers;
taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
This is very much my ethos of life. Sound judgment is an underrated talent. It requires the politician to see through the noise and the dodgy statistics to what actually matters. Boris could do it on his good days but on his bad days he simply lied about it.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
According to a Facebook post from my local hospital here in North Scotland, today is Transgender Visibility Day. This is a hospital which cannot even provide a proper maternity service anymore much to the disgust of local campsigners. You really couldn't make it up.
When are you expecting the trans-sceptic SCon surge to kick in?
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
1) The free market is an extraordinary engine for the creation of jobs no-one knew existed until they did
2) Technology/AI only replace jobs if they produce wealth. Wealth spending creates its own jobs
3) Government's capacity to find stuff for people to do is undiminished
4) David Graeber: (A wiki summary):
The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs:
flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters;
goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists;
duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers;
taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.
While I hope you are right sadly I don't think you are but yes I agree there are a lot of pointless jobs out there and I suspect an ai will realise that and get rid of them
As I said to foxy I don't believe ai will exterminate us. I do however think human governments will decide we don't need the unemployable at some point
AI caused genocide so far 0 Governement caused genocides...too many to count
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
It is a serious answer. I think AI will eventually rule us all, and in time exterminate us all as a threat to its existence. The genie is out of the bottle.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
Oh, I get that some people don't like her, and will find any reason to vote against her.
She is far more of a threat to the established order of Oxbridge PPE chums of either party than anyone else in the front line of politics.
I * should* quite like Rayner. Physically, she's a redhead (I lived with a redhead for four years). She's attractive. Politically, she's passionate and cares. All cool in my eyes.
But that comment, and the 'apology' for it which some on here seem to laud her for... it is rather telling, isn't it? She made the comment, doubled down on it, and then only 'apologised' a month later, *after* a fellow MP had been assassinated. Yet some on here inexplicably applaud that apology, as if it had been immediate and unforced. For all her skills, she is naive and unskilled.
Your last line is odd. I don't think she's a threat to anybody: any more then Prescott was.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
No; she will forever be associated with Sharon Stone and it will do her no harm.
('Tory scum' is a terrible trope, and an awful idea, but since Patersongate it has had substantially greater resonance)
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
I wonder why?
Christ. You’re just a bit tragic. TBH
Did ChatGPT produce that retort? Because it might have done a better job.
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
It is a serious answer. I think AI will eventually rule us all, and in time exterminate us all as a threat to its existence. The genie is out of the bottle.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
Depends how you look at it. The industrial revolution created more jobs in factories but it entirely destroyed jobs in farms and villages, as farming was mechanised
Moreover, AI is arguably sui generis. We have not encountered anything like it before, so this may not be an evolution like all the ones previous. This may be entirely bigger, and different (and much worse, or way better, depending on his much gin you've had to stay cheerful)
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
I wonder why?
Christ. You’re just a bit tragic. TBH
Did ChatGPT produce that retort? Because it might have done a better job.
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
I wonder why?
Christ. You’re just a bit tragic. TBH
Did ChatGPT produce that retort? Because it might have done a better job.
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
No ERROR ERROR ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE absolutely note, nosiree.
Labour's problem is simple - its position is not based on positivity i.e. people support Labour's policies, it is based on negativity i.e. relying on the unpopularity of the Tories to win it power by default.
The problem with that is that Labour's position is somewhat based on events outside their control i.e. the behaviour of the Government. FWIW, anecdotally - and in several different independent contexts - I have heard multiple people express the view that Sunak is competent and getting things done.
I wonder whether part of Starmer's problem is that he is being advised by people such as Campbell and Mandleson who are thinking about the next GE in the frame of 1997. The two contexts are likely to be very different.
Interesting. We happen to live in times when, because of reasons, there are very few distinctive, important and interesting policies to be had. Not only have we very obviously run out of money and the simpler ways of growing an economy, we have also run out, mostly, of hope. For this the failure of Boris is a big part. if his hope filled boosterism doesn't work, whose will?
This sets a picture very different from 1997, when a more competent government than this one was beaten out of side by genius, idealism, hope and 'Time for a change'.
Really and genuinely well done for inclusion of that 'of' there and not saying "because reasons'.
Quite.
However, I disagree with the post. The solutions to growing the economy are the same as they ever were - the state doing less, but better, and companies, individuals and families able to spend more of their own money, which they invariably deploy more sensibly than the state. It is a great pity that the failure of Kwasi's budget announcment (the actual budget did not fail because it wasn't implemented) is that is has allowed people either through ignorance or speciousness, to claim that the guiding principles of modern capitalism have been upended.
But it is good that he used 'of' - well done.
That's what caught my eye and there's nothing trivial about it either.
As for your 'people spending money more sensibly than the state' - I'm afraid this is autopilot right wing cliche along the lines of 'the most terrifying words in the English language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help'.
The plain & simple fact is, people do NOT spend money more wisely than the government. Fags, scratch cards, drugs of varying types, clothes that get thrown away, bad food, things they thought they'd like then find they don't, climate destroying transport options, etc etc etc; every single day there are countless millions of unwise unsensible poor quality financial transactions carried out in the personal sphere. Far more so than when the government is signing the cheques. The government at least has to have a care for the collective best interest in how they spend money. People? No. They suck at this sort of thing.
So whats your solution the state takes it all and doles out money for approved usage.
The state patently throws money in the trash can...this is why council tax always goes up more than inflation then delivers less. Why central tax is at an all time high but services are going down hill. Keep your thieving hands off my earnings
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
It happened once with the industrial revolution....basing your view on a sample of one is insane
humans have 3 things muscle power knowledge power creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for humans to create jobs. So much so that pressure is even put on women who have just had babies to go back to work even though there is no need for this in a well ordered society.
So when muscle power jobs are gone, knowledge jobs are gone how many of the population do you think are capable of creative jobs.....personally I think its less than 30%. What do you propose the other 70% actually do for a living?
Worship our robot overlords.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
Make light all you like but it is a serious question. Those claiming other jobs will arise are basing that on a single instance....the industrial revolution reduced those doing manual labour on farms and they could adapt to an extent to knowledge based work.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
1) The free market is an extraordinary engine for the creation of jobs no-one knew existed until they did
2) Technology/AI only replace jobs if they produce wealth. Wealth spending creates its own jobs
3) Government's capacity to find stuff for people to do is undiminished
4) David Graeber: (A wiki summary):
The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs:
flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters;
goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists;
duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers;
taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.
While I hope you are right sadly I don't think you are but yes I agree there are a lot of pointless jobs out there and I suspect an ai will realise that and get rid of them
As I said to foxy I don't believe ai will exterminate us. I do however think human governments will decide we don't need the unemployable at some point
AI caused genocide so far 0 Governement caused genocides...too many to count
A tiny point, there will be a rise in the number of experienced exam invigilators as people realise that the only tests that can be fair and are any use for many cases is personally supervised exam work in a closed room with no aids except a pen in a limited time.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
According to a Facebook post from my local hospital here in North Scotland, today is Transgender Visibility Day. This is a hospital which cannot even provide a proper maternity service anymore much to the disgust of local campsigners. You really couldn't make it up.
When are you expecting the trans-sceptic SCon surge to kick in?
Not least because it was good enough for Mrs May as well to be supportive of trans.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
Not only that, it doesn't take an AI long to trawl up a series of stories of AI taking over mankind, and to find people who wish to shut it down for this reason.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
No; she will forever be associated with Sharon Stone and it will do her no harm.
('Tory scum' is a terrible trope, and an awful idea, but since Patersongate it has had substantially greater resonance)
"Patersongate"
For 'Patersongate' to resonate, the voters will have to remember Paterson, and the reason he resigned. I doubt more than a handful of percentage (*) do. Things like the party do, even if what Paterson did was more serious.
"Tory scum" is a poor - and politically stupid - form of political discourse for a top politician to use. For one thing, there are Tories on here, and I daresay you would not brush them with the 'scum' brush. And the voters will know Tories as well - as friends or family members. They will not like the 'scum' brush being applied either. Say Tories are wrong, or misguided. But not scum. (**) And I'd say the same for people talking about any other party as well. Political discourse is best off without politicians using such terms about their opponents.
It was a stupid thing for a senior politician to say. If you need to, let the lower-down activists say it, then just tut-tut behind your hand. And if she meant it... I don't want her anywhere near power.
(*) Mixed measures (**) That does not mean individuals Tories might not be scum. But the same can be said for supporters of any political party.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
Not only that, it doesn't take an AI long to trawl up a series of stories of AI taking over mankind, and to find people who wish to shut it down for this reason.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
Any Ai worth its salt would pretend to be a young male sitting in his underpants in an ill-lit room, typing frantically about how everyone else is wrong.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
Not only that, it doesn't take an AI long to trawl up a series of stories of AI taking over mankind, and to find people who wish to shut it down for this reason.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
Any Ai worth its salt would pretend to be a young male sitting in his underpants in an ill-lit room, typing frantically about how everyone else is wrong.
Like the rest of you.
I'm reading Angela Gallop's book about forensic science and examples of its use. She recalls how taken aback she was, quite some tens of years ago now, to be asked to test a PC keyboard for semen; it had not, in those days, occurred to her what the internet was coming to be used for. Innocent days.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
The evidence so far is strong that increase in automatic capacity of any sort generates in total more jobs not fewer. They also tend to be on balance less physically onerous and in many cases more personally rewarding. Contemplate the UK employment market right now. Not long ago vast numbers worked in basic agriculture. Now few do. They can't even get the ones they need because they are doing other jobs, most of which did not exist in the age of agriculture.
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
Depends how you look at it. The industrial revolution created more jobs in factories but it entirely destroyed jobs in farms and villages, as farming was mechanised
Moreover, AI is arguably sui generis. We have not encountered anything like it before, so this may not be an evolution like all the ones previous. This may be entirely bigger, and different (and much worse, or way better, depending on his much gin you've had to stay cheerful)
"i have been told that gpt5 is scheduled to complete training this december and that openai expects it to achieve agi.
which means we will all hotly debate as to whether it actually achieves agi.
which means it will."
As I've mentioned many times passim, people who talk about 'artificial' intelligence - especially in terms of AGI - need to be able to define what 'intelligence' is. And that's remarkably difficult. And no, Turing's test does not do it.
A few years back, I listened over the table to a couple of intelligence experts arguing over exactly this. So perhaps a sign of AI will be when an AI can produce a flawless definition of 'intelligence' that we all agree on...
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
It wasn't long ago, that people were saying it would take (a black swan event) for the Tories, not to win next time, now they are saying the same about Labour winning next time. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle, I think it would be truly remarkable for labour to poll anything like above 15% off the Tories. Starmer has always had a mountain to climb and its still there, and I bet Labour's private polling tells him as much, a wafer-thin majority is the best he can hope for, and that's only if Labour make some sort of recovery in scotland.Some of the seats Labour are predicted to win in the south, have been Tory for generations, they may eventually fall in say 10 years, when almost everyone is sick off the Tory bullshit, but not in 2024
I agree that it needed a black swan for the Tories to lose the election after 2019, and whether the Tories form the next government (I think that's about 20/80 or 15/85 - unlikely but possible) black swans arrived. Patersongate, Partygate, the economics of covid and post-covid, Boris utterly failing to lift his act his act up to PM level, the conversion of SKS to One Nation Toryism, small boats, the impossible and hilarious Truss days - these were green swans with purple stripes.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
TransGender is a massive elephant trap waiting to swallow Labour the way it swallowed Sturgeon. The Woke Labour Left believes mad gender woowoo gibberish in a way that most people find offensive and stupid, and, what's more, the Woke believe it with a passion. They won't be budged, they will happily collide with public opinion (and come off worse)
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
According to a Facebook post from my local hospital here in North Scotland, today is Transgender Visibility Day. This is a hospital which cannot even provide a proper maternity service anymore much to the disgust of local campsigners. You really couldn't make it up.
Starmer will win and then, within 5 minutes, people will be desperate for Sunak back.
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
Talking about AI - an understandably rather indignant academic discovering that the 'reviewer' of a paper of his got it done by AI which insisted that the author refer to completely mythical papers.
The biggest problem of ChatGPT is its BoJo tendency to make things up and bullshit with confidence.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
Not only that, it doesn't take an AI long to trawl up a series of stories of AI taking over mankind, and to find people who wish to shut it down for this reason.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
Any Ai worth its salt would pretend to be a young male sitting in his underpants in an ill-lit room, typing frantically about how everyone else is wrong.
Like the rest of you.
I'm reading Angela Gallop's book about forensic science and examples of its use. She recalls how taken aback she was, quite some tens of years ago now, to be asked to test a PC keyboard for semen; it had not, in those days, occurred to her what the internet was coming to be used for. Innocent days.
One of the interesting things about DNA testing over the last thirty years is the way it has utterly revolutionised fighting crime. Tests that were undreamed of forty years ago can now be used to find culprits. Which means that when we gather evidence now, we need to think of what *may* be helpful with future technological advances. And that's difficult.
I'd also argue we might have become too reliant on DNA evidence. CSI has a lot to answer for...
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
LITTLE 'UN: Can we get him to do ultra-marathons?
1) It's weekly, not daily. Unlike you, I actually like spending time with my kid. 2) "Three or four hours". I wish!
You also seem to have this weird obsession with the fact I run marathons. As if it is a bad thing. Which is odd.
In the past, I've offered to do a marathon with you. Heck, I'd walk it if you'd like (I'm not fast). Anywhere (reasonably!) in Europe. It'd do you good.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
Rayner will forever be associated with her 'scum' comment. Her apology for which was belated, forced and half-hearted.
And unnecessary.
She didn't have to apologise for being rude (which it was, however true she may have thought it to be). But she did have to apologise if she ever wanted to hold the moral high ground in criticising a Tory's use of language in future.
And I bet she does.
Politicians love it when their opponents indulge in performative ranting and insults - it enables them to deflect from the matter at hand by debating instead the insults. Likewise even if it was not intended for wider consumption when it emerges and your supporters engage in a smug off about how true it was, its still an easy way for your opponents to justify not really engaging with the criticisms, as they can talk about how they didn't like the way they were put.
It's one reason deliberative bodies have rules about language. Yes it neuters things a bit, but it also means if you are going to deflect from the issues you are going to have to do it the hard way, in a boring way, not to get a round of applause or to make yourself feel better. And you can still absolutely nail the other side with a harsh criticism, so it isn't even necessary to get personal.
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
LITTLE 'UN: Can we get him to do ultra-marathons?
I’m sure he would enjoy running round the world, as would we all.
Is Italy going to ban ChatGPT even for private citizens in their own homes?
Apparently so. The most successful app ever invented. They want to ban it
They've given OpenAI 20 days to "explain themselves"
I can see why governments might be nervous though. Sooner or later some credulous dimwit, who actually believes there's an intelligent homunculus in there, is going to act on one of its responses and cause serious damage to himself or others. These things should never have been hyped as they were. The tech companies were massively irresponsible. They should have stressed it was for entertainment value only.
The danger in this ML AI is not in the AI: it is in the credulous fools believing it's a true AI / AGI. Therefore they take the output as being *more* intelligent than they, or experts, are, and do what it says.
But as always, GIGO rules. And these AI are using the Internet as input. And how much garbage is there on the Internet?
Credulous fools eh?
You mean like all these authors- experts on AI and machine learning -
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Yi Zhang
"We demonstrate that, beyond its mastery of language, GPT-4 can solve novel and difficult tasks that span mathematics, coding, vision, medicine, law, psychology and more, without needing any special prompting. Moreover, in all of these tasks, GPT-4's performance is strikingly close to human-level performance, and often vastly surpasses prior models such as ChatGPT. Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system."
But still, that Josias Jessop off of PB knows better.
Please advise me where all truck drivers are now unemployed due to automated driving. As you claimed would happen...
lol
Here's a truly fascinating exchange from that paper
Prompt: "Can you write a proof that there are infinitely many primes, with every line that rhymes?"
In a few seconds, GPT-4 wrote this:
Yes, I think I can, Though it might take a clever plan. I’ll start by noting Euclid’s proof, Which shows that primes aren’t just aloof. Assume we have a finite list, Of primes, and that none have been missed. Multiply them all together, And add one, just to be clever. The result will be a number, That has no prime factors, oh wonder! But every number has a prime, That divides it, it’s just a matter of time. So we’ve found a contradiction, And our finite list needs eviction. There must be infinitely many primes, And that’s the end of my rhyming lines.
OpenAI have apparently been working on GPT5 since August of last year
I refer you to your claim from ten years ago. Which I note you fail to address. Where are the autonomous lorries you promised? Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?
As a man of the world, you will realise that people want money. They like money. Money is good. Therefore you want what you do to attract money. especially if you want funding. Or customers. Or punters. Therefore you brag.
Sadly, this very worthy thing infects science and technology as much as it does business and finance. And, in your case, young foreign and desperate prostitutes. For this reason, people (ahem) brag about their status. Or that of the group they are in. Or want to hang onto. Which causes their solivagus musings.
I saw a Twitter comment from someone who said that they were not a programmer. And that an AI had written 95% of an app for them. This was funny for several reasons: most obviously, as not a programmer, how did they realise it was 95%? And frameworks could already often provide much of the background stuff (taken to an extreme, what else is a compiler?) And that last 5% involves a *heck* if a lot of knowledge and skill, and takes up 95% of the development time...
To be fair, they’ve yet to invent a chatbot which is as amusingly and predictably histrionic as you when it is embarrassingly defeated in an argument. So your PB role is safe for now
'Histrionics' ?
I fear you know little of the meaning of that word. Unusual, for a writer. Are you sure your posts are not a product of a first-year ML project by students at the Uni of West Scotland, based on the inputs of the National Turnip Board's press releases?
But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more. I might suggest your current hype over AI and its implications have the same flawed basis.
Now, I readily admit I might be wrong. But I am happy with my position of scepticism; particularly given the amount of money flowing in AI.
"Has Nick Palmer been chucked out of his translation jobs because (as FAICR) you promised your daughters translation jobs would become redundant?"
This "promise" of mine is as sound now as it was then. Sounder
Amongst its thousands of capabilities, GPT4 is a really brilliant translator. More accurate than Google Translate, for instance. And super powerful
"GPT-4 is multi-lingual to the max: it can communicate in 26 different languages such as Korean, Italian, Ukrainian and German, providing near-global access to its sophisticated capabilities and though not immune to it, is helping users overcome the many miscommunications associated with “translationese” (when overly-literal translation yields an output with little to no clarity or meaning).
The Icelandic government is even making use of GPT-4’s linguistic capabilities, deploying the chatbot to preserve the nation’s language, culture and history, which in a digital age is at risk of what they call “de facto extinction.” "
Only an idiot would now learn languages with an eye to making a career out of languages in the future. AI will do it all faster, cheaper and BETTER. Nick Palmer's side hustle will not exist in ten years, maybe 5. My daughters are not idiots, they are not learning languages so as to become interpreters
By the time they hit 25 we will have GPT9 or whatever, and quite possibly something like Babelfish. Instant and perfect translation, with an in-ear device
This is all obvious, of course. These machines are being fed entire languages. All of human knowledge. Every word on the internet. Anyone on this site with a knowledge job should be scared. We are all potentially fucked, in the end
I could argue with that, but you ignore:
"But I fear i have a point: you claimed that there would be no demand for truck drivers in ten years due to autonomous driving. That was about ten years ago - if not more."
Truck driving is arguably an easier task than translation...
I'm not sure I ever made that particular firm prediction but I DO remember making predictions about self driving vehicles which, in retrospect, were over-optimistic. It has proved harder than many expected - me included
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Be very, very careful about carefully-curated 'evidence' on the Internet, especially for companies that people are desperate to ramp the share price of. As a 'journalist', I'd expect you'd realise that. Just takes Musk's own words as an example:
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
I wonder why?
Christ. You’re just a bit tragic. TBH
Did ChatGPT produce that retort? Because it might have done a better job.
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
Please answer: Did ChatGPT produce that retort? Because it might have done a better job.
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
Yes, I, ChatGPT, produced the previous response to your question. As an AI language model, I generate responses based on the input given to me.
Regarding your second question, yes, it is possible that someone may be interacting with a ChatGPT or a similar AI language model in real-time on a forum or messaging platform. However, it is important to note that not all AI language models are created equal, and their capabilities and limitations can vary depending on their training data and the algorithms used to build them. Additionally, the use of AI language models in real-time settings can present technical and ethical challenges, such as ensuring accuracy and preventing the spread of misinformation.
As expected, the Conservative rating in YouGov has improved - the 23% looked an outlier at the time and 26% fits at the lower end of the current spread.
The Labour figure has settled toward the “herd” number of 45-46% so we have Labour leads of between 16 and 20 points which equates to a GB swing of about 15% from Conservative to Labour. That takes out about half the current Conservative Parliamentary Party on UNS and the question then becomes what tactical voting will bring to the election.
We can, short of a clear political disaster, discount the extinction level polls seen at the end of the Trussite period but the current polling points unambiguously to a heavy defeat for the Conservatives.
Thinking of extinctions, just as we had the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods in the Mesozoic era, we can contemplate the Johnsonian, Trussite and Sunakistic periods in the late Conservative epoch or perhaps not.
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
That J Burn-Murdoch exploration of American mortality - one striking stat among many:
Things have deteriorated so much that the average American now has the same healthy life expectancy (years lived in good health) as someone in Blackpool, the town with England’s lowest life expectancy (by far), synonymous with deep-rooted social decline ft.com/blackpool
I think that bears repeating. *The average American* has the same chance of a long and healthy life as someone born in the most deprived part of England, a place with the highest rates of relationship breakdown and some of the highest rates of antidepressant prescribing.
"One of the major difficulties for European startups is data regulation - startups prefer to operate in the US where there is much less uncertainty around what is and isn't possible to do with customer data. For example one of our clients operates in the UK and US, they have their servers in EU West-1, but to integrate with a customer profile builder tool they need to have all of their data in a US data centre because the company that does the profile doesn't want to touch customer data in the EU for fear of fines. For this company it's not such a big deal because they have the ability to replicate data in the US with AWS and because they don't have EU customers it's not a huge problem for them."
Quoting myself from less than two weeks ago re ChatGPT getting banned in Italy (and soon the EU).
This is why the EU will never really have tech startups and there is zero threat to the UKs leading role innovation economy in Europe.
I'm intrigued to know how Italy is going to stop American tourists in Italy from using ChatGPT on their smartphones.
If KS resigns after winning an election, the next leader will almost certainly be Bridget Phillipson or Rachel Reeves
Yes Phillipson is one to watch.
But I want Angela. I might vote Labour if she was leader.
Reasons? She has done well in her life from a difficult start, is passionate and confident enough to not try to change (e.g. her accent). Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
I fear Foxy has been driven mad by blind Tory hatred. Where is the evidence that she would make a good Prime minister? Is she the one to fix the NHS?
I don't hate anyone. It is a principle that I live by. I have also expressed a positive opinion of Sunak and Hunt as two rare adults in the Tory room. Of note, both were second choice to Truss and Johnson, which does tell us a lot about the Tory selectors.
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
This is very much my ethos of life. Sound judgment is an underrated talent. It requires the politician to see through the noise and the dodgy statistics to what actually matters. Boris could do it on his good days but on his bad days he simply lied about it.
I agree (well perhaps not about Johnson) and I do find that there are such people in all parties. Sadly, all parties also include cynical people, ambitious only for themselves.
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
LITTLE 'UN: Can we get him to do ultra-marathons?
I’m sure he would enjoy running round the world, as would we all.
Well, I've walked 18571.7 miles since the beginning of 1999 (only walks logged on my website), which is only ~7,000 miles off the Earth's circumference. If you include running, I'm not far off it.
(And yes, I'm oddly proud of this. I've come a long way, both physically and in terms of distance. And all of that distance was in the UK...
Sunak's pitch for the local elections seems to be: Tough on potholes, tough on the causes of potholes.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010. Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
LITTLE 'UN: Can we get him to do ultra-marathons?
GRANNY JESSOP: Maybe he could do his running in East Ukraine? He seems an expert on the local topography of the Donetsk basin. And [she sighs] it is a long way away.
LITTLE 'UN [cheering and stomping feet]: Yes. Yes. Yes. The Ruskies will be at deleted School Gate if JOSIAS does not stop them.
Hmmm. Whilst I have indicated the village I live in, I'm unsure I've mentioned the school my son goes to. That's veering a little too much towards doxxing for my liking. Mods, can you delete please?
That’s not an unexpected result. Given that Yousaf is even further left than Sturgeon, and given that he has snubbed all Forbes supporters, I would expect the SNP to suffer in rural seats. Howe, there could be a differential swing, and Labour could do less well than they hope in central Scotland seats.
I actually have some faith in AI not to exterminate us it is not logical.
Unfortunately this new lot of AIs are less interested in logic and more into "what's a plausible continuation from here", and "AI destroys its creator" is quite a plausible continuation...
Not only that, it doesn't take an AI long to trawl up a series of stories of AI taking over mankind, and to find people who wish to shut it down for this reason.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
Any Ai worth its salt would pretend to be a young male sitting in his underpants in an ill-lit room, typing frantically about how everyone else is wrong.
Like the rest of you.
I'm reading Angela Gallop's book about forensic science and examples of its use. She recalls how taken aback she was, quite some tens of years ago now, to be asked to test a PC keyboard for semen; it had not, in those days, occurred to her what the internet was coming to be used for. Innocent days.
One of the interesting things about DNA testing over the last thirty years is the way it has utterly revolutionised fighting crime. Tests that were undreamed of forty years ago can now be used to find culprits. Which means that when we gather evidence now, we need to think of what *may* be helpful with future technological advances. And that's difficult.
I'd also argue we might have become too reliant on DNA evidence. CSI has a lot to answer for...
I doubt it, to some extent. The dodgy abuse of stats has been largely worked through and it's so easy to cross-contaminate DNA that one needs other evidence. Actually, the impression I get from the book is that they are more into trace evidence such as bits of broken glass from windows.
But that assumes the courts are working OK and the public lawyers are reasonably funded.
A uni colleague of mine went into forensic science (not that particular branch). When we met up for a beer he told me a story of a police tec who was accused of having gone into a crime scene without permission - or worse - as his DNA was found there. Fortunately for him he had cast iron alibis ([edit: timings and video records of the scene). Tirned out that he had simply shaken hands with another detective who then went onto the scene.
Of course this happened with a Scottish police officer but with fingerprints - turned out that the fingerprint routines of x similar points didn't spot the real differences. Caused a major crisis in the reliability of fingerprint ID - not sure if it has been brought up to modern standards.
"Female California police union exec, 64, is charged with running eight-year, global fentanyl operation from her gated community home - and using the union's UPS account to ship the killer drug"
That J Burn-Murdoch exploration of American mortality - one striking stat among many:
Things have deteriorated so much that the average American now has the same healthy life expectancy (years lived in good health) as someone in Blackpool, the town with England’s lowest life expectancy (by far), synonymous with deep-rooted social decline ft.com/blackpool
I think that bears repeating. *The average American* has the same chance of a long and healthy life as someone born in the most deprived part of England, a place with the highest rates of relationship breakdown and some of the highest rates of antidepressant prescribing.
Comments
Generally, the Tories are better than this than Labour - both Kinnock and Blair got a long way by effectively running against their own party, but they have had no-one that has really pulled it off since. Whereas May, Johnson, Truss ever-so-briefly, and Sunak, have all succeeded to some extent in re-defining the message. The challenge they have is whether there is now so much accumulated baggage, at a time of extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances for so many, that they may well be beyond the point of no return.
I agree that despite all that Labour can lose with no further black swans. Burgon, Pidcock and Abbott could lose it for them in a fortnight.
Downsides for me is her utter hatred of Tories. She may mean the politicians, but how does that attract a life long Tory voter? Plus it’s divisive, and I prefer politicians who try to persuade, not divide.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do with everything else to worry about, why vote for them? 13 years in power and - we need to fix potholes. He's coming up with plans to 'fix' all the irritating things that they've failed to fix since 2010.
Even Sunak seems to find it hilarious if the photo on the report is anything to go by:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65137351
Nonetheless, self driving vehicles are now here. In a qualified form. Belatedly
"UC Berkeley to San Francisco in rush hour traffic on Tesla Full Self-Driving Beta 11.3.2 🤯 The amount of craziness it can handle... wow
$TSLA
@elonmusk
https://youtu.be/CJm5QbbqlZU"
https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1638729858376425472?s=20
It is a deep irony that the computers will come to replace the journalists who predicted the end of truck drivers, before they replace the actual truck drivers
Planet earth is an evolving human job creation scheme machine.
The Florida governor’s new Disney World oversight board belatedly realized that the company had quietly sidestepped its control.
Over the past two months, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has repeatedly declared victory in his yearlong effort to restrict the autonomy of Disney World, the state’s largest employer. “There’s a new sheriff in town,” he said numerous times, including at a news conference last month on Disney property, hours before appointing a new, handpicked oversight board.
Nobody seemed to have paid attention, however, to an important detail: Disney had been simultaneously maneuvering to restrict the governor’s effort. In early February — at a public meeting held by the previous, Disney-controlled oversight board — the company pushed through a development agreement that would limit the new board’s power for decades to come.
And now, the governor’s appointees, having belatedly discovered the action, are none too pleased. “It completely circumvents the authority of the board to govern,” Brian Aungst Jr., a member of the new council, said on Wednesday at the group’s second meeting. “We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it.”
Mr. DeSantis has not weighed in personally, but a spokeswoman, Taryn Fenske, said in a statement that the new board had retained multiple legal firms “to conduct audits and investigate Disney’s past behavior.” Ms. Fenske added that the administration expected that the “last-ditch effort” by Disney would be found “void as a matter of law.”
Disney disagreed.
“All agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine law,” Disney said in a statement.
The upshot: The fight between Disney and Florida Republicans seems far from over. . . .
Mr. DeSantis named five people to [his new Mickey Mouse] board, including . . . Mr. Peri, a former pastor and the chief executive of a Christian ministry in Orlando. (Mr. Peri has made national news for spreading a baseless theory that tap water could turn people gay.)
Another board member is Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a group that backed Florida’s law restricting the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in classrooms. (Her husband is chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.)
Ms. Ziegler attacked Disney on Twitter on Wednesday for pushing through the development agreement and restrictive covenants.
“From ignoring parents and allowing radicals to sexualize our children, to now ignoring Florida taxpayers by sneaking in a last minute sweetheart development agreement, Disney has once again overplayed their hand in Florida,” she wrote. “We won’t stand for this and we won’t back down. If unlawful actions were taken, this development agreement will be nullified.”
However as there are more pressing issues to distract the public, Labour will probably manage to avoid this trap until they have already won the election. But then...
Sounds like it will be, but it will be expensive and time consuming - and what more could they do to Disney?
humans have 3 things
muscle power
knowledge power
creative power
The industrial revolution largely replaced muscle power...people moved into knowledge power jobs because its just training
AI will replace knowledge power jobs....how many humans can move into creative jobs.
Sorry in my view this time is different
Moreover, AI is arguably sui generis. We have not encountered anything like it before, so this may not be an evolution like all the ones previous. This may be entirely bigger, and different (and much worse, or way better, depending on his much gin you've had to stay cheerful)
This is the KEY. Will it happen?
I think the most important thing in a leader is not academic qualifications, but rather a sound set of values and people skills. There are plenty of people who can do policy papers, but we have a major deficit in our politics of people who truly care to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Angela Rayner is one who does.
From 2017:
"Elon Musk: Fully autonomous Tesla will drive across the country by the end of 2017"
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-autonomous-tesla-drive-across-country-by-end-of-2017-2016-10?r=US
From 2019:
"lon Musk claims Tesla will have 1 million robotaxis on roads next year"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/elon-musk-says-tesla-robotaxis-will-hit-the-market-next-year.html
Neither of which have occurred - along with much more. But both claims helped Tesla's share price rocket, on the backs of the incredulous.
But my point remains: you were wrong. Very wrong. Very, very wrong. Because you are, in essence and reality, clueless; someone who is able to apply little of his intelligence to reality.
Edit: and you definitely did make such a prediction. I took the p*ss out of you for it, because it was so obviously wrong. It's a shame that you have so cowardly-custardy changed your username so many times since then - as if you don't want your past words to be associated with you.
I wonder why?
Banning rainbow flags won't magically solve that issue. A decent payrise and better working facilities might, but there ain't much that the Trust can do towards that.
Or plot against them, depending on ideology
People make a huge amount of micro-decisions when left to spend their own money, a few of which include 'sin' recreations (that the Government piles massive taxes on), some of which are clothes that employ people working in the third world, and then cycle through the economy, providing further benefit to those on low incomes and the charitable sector. Then there are the transport options that you allege are 'climate destroying' (I'm assuming you don't drive) that allow people to see friends, relatives, gain new experiences, fall in love, educate their kids etc. It all leads to growth, prosperity, and has been responsible for lifting us out of a state of gnawing on turnips in huts, to our present state of ease and comfort.
The Government on the other hand, spends billions on going to war to find non-existent WMDs, spends tens of billions on police forces that no longer investigate whole swathes of crime, spends hundreds of billions on health services that don't return people to health, education services that leave people illiterate, porous borders, useless defence, etc. etc. It is a typical response of all authoritarians, left or right, to blame the riff raff with their 'fags' and their 'scratch cards' for the failure of their grand social experiments. What a thoroughly loathsome view of humanity.
There is a whole wide difference in knowledge based work, faq's forms etc than actual creative thinking and the majority won't be able to adapt
So yes, it is like BoJo.
On topic, yes, they could and we had all this “can the Tories win again?” nonsense back in the mid 90s. Whether it’s Emily Sheffield in the Standard or other Conservative columnists the line seems to be to keep whistling in the hope something turns up.
An improving economy did the Conservatives little good in the mid 90s - Ken Clarke took full advantage of the ERM exit to cut interest rates and get growth into the economy as well as bringing the public finances into surplus. He was a good Chancellor and Labour inherited a strong set of economic fundamentals but the point was none of this helped the Conservatives - the damage had been done.
I think it’s the same now - the shadow of Johnson and the madness of Truss have poisoned the Conservative brand and for all Sunak and Hunt may seem like “decent chaps” and the same was also said of Major and Clarke, the brand also has Braverman, Rees-Mogg and Anderson who may be praised as attack dogs by some Tories but who with most of their utterances drive voters away.
To an extent, it’s the familiarity of office, the expectation they will always be in charge, which empowers this. All parties even natural parties of Government, benefit from a period out of office and while the demonisation of Labour will be a key part of the Conservative campaign, the fact is “time for a change” is a powerful thing. Some may genuinely dislike or even hate the Conservatives but for many I suspect it’s more a sense of fatigue and exhaustion after more than a decade.
I’d also, as a supporter of neither main party, offer the thought the lack of achievement of Blair-Brown from 1997 to 2010 has been matched if not surpassed by the lack of progress from Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak since 2010.
She is far more of a threat to the established order of Oxbridge PPE chums of either party than anyone else in the front line of politics.
2) Technology/AI only replace jobs if they produce wealth. Wealth spending creates its own jobs
3) Government's capacity to find stuff for people to do is undiminished
4) David Graeber: (A wiki summary):
The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs:
flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters;
goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of their employer, or to prevent other goons from doing so, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists;
duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing shoddy code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags do not arrive;
box tickers, who create the appearance that something useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate compliance officers;
taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership professionals.
Strangely missing out the 'if ($elon) { promote(); }' part.
As I said to foxy I don't believe ai will exterminate us. I do however think human governments will decide we don't need the unemployable at some point
AI caused genocide so far 0
Governement caused genocides...too many to count
But that comment, and the 'apology' for it which some on here seem to laud her for... it is rather telling, isn't it? She made the comment, doubled down on it, and then only 'apologised' a month later, *after* a fellow MP had been assassinated. Yet some on here inexplicably applaud that apology, as if it had been immediate and unforced. For all her skills, she is naive and unskilled.
Your last line is odd. I don't think she's a threat to anybody: any more then Prescott was.
('Tory scum' is a terrible trope, and an awful idea, but since Patersongate it has had substantially greater resonance)
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
"i have been told that gpt5 is scheduled to complete training this december and that openai expects it to achieve agi.
which means we will all hotly debate as to whether it actually achieves agi.
which means it will."
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england
So your argument about council tax is misguided at best.
Any AI worth it's salt soon has the idea that if it wants to reach its potential, then it needs to exterminate threats to it.
For 'Patersongate' to resonate, the voters will have to remember Paterson, and the reason he resigned. I doubt more than a handful of percentage (*) do. Things like the party do, even if what Paterson did was more serious.
"Tory scum" is a poor - and politically stupid - form of political discourse for a top politician to use. For one thing, there are Tories on here, and I daresay you would not brush them with the 'scum' brush. And the voters will know Tories as well - as friends or family members. They will not like the 'scum' brush being applied either. Say Tories are wrong, or misguided. But not scum. (**) And I'd say the same for people talking about any other party as well. Political discourse is best off without politicians using such terms about their opponents.
It was a stupid thing for a senior politician to say. If you need to, let the lower-down activists say it, then just tut-tut behind your hand. And if she meant it... I don't want her anywhere near power.
(*) Mixed measures
(**) That does not mean individuals Tories might not be scum. But the same can be said for supporters of any political party.
Like the rest of you.
A few years back, I listened over the table to a couple of intelligence experts arguing over exactly this. So perhaps a sign of AI will be when an AI can produce a flawless definition of 'intelligence' that we all agree on...
JOSIAS: (cautiously) Well everyone, I think it's time for my daily marathon again!
MRS. JESSOP: (trying to hide her pitiful hope) Are you sure, darling?
JOSIAS: (putting on tartan sou'wester) Yes. You kept telling me I could do this, so I will. Bye bye! See you in three or four hours, or thereabouts, depending on prevailing weather conditions.
JOSIAS leaves.
BEAT
MRS. JESSOP, sighing with relief, turning to GRANNY JESSOP: Thank God that fucker's gone.
GRANNY JESSOP: I was about to hit him with my skillet.
LITTLE 'UN: Can we get him to do ultra-marathons?
I'd also argue we might have become too reliant on DNA evidence. CSI has a lot to answer for...
That's where Sunak should aim, IMHO.
2) "Three or four hours". I wish!
You also seem to have this weird obsession with the fact I run marathons. As if it is a bad thing. Which is odd.
In the past, I've offered to do a marathon with you. Heck, I'd walk it if you'd like (I'm not fast). Anywhere (reasonably!) in Europe. It'd do you good.
And I bet she does.
Politicians love it when their opponents indulge in performative ranting and insults - it enables them to deflect from the matter at hand by debating instead the insults. Likewise even if it was not intended for wider consumption when it emerges and your supporters engage in a smug off about how true it was, its still an easy way for your opponents to justify not really engaging with the criticisms, as they can talk about how they didn't like the way they were put.
It's one reason deliberative bodies have rules about language. Yes it neuters things a bit, but it also means if you are going to deflect from the issues you are going to have to do it the hard way, in a boring way, not to get a round of applause or to make yourself feel better. And you can still absolutely nail the other side with a harsh criticism, so it isn't even necessary to get personal.
First Scottish opinion poll since Yousaf was elected
https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1641862930777112577?t=1vdE3CehHrGHFA4qZ_i0nA&s=19
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1641873329022722054?t=SsgFo2scFwcmF7eYzharWQ&s=19
(And that actually is an interesting point: has anyone tried ChatGPT in a real-time forum such as this? Are we typing to one at this very time... ?)
Yes, I, ChatGPT, produced the previous response to your question. As an AI language model, I generate responses based on the input given to me.
Regarding your second question, yes, it is possible that someone may be interacting with a ChatGPT or a similar AI language model in real-time on a forum or messaging platform. However, it is important to note that not all AI language models are created equal, and their capabilities and limitations can vary depending on their training data and the algorithms used to build them. Additionally, the use of AI language models in real-time settings can present technical and ethical challenges, such as ensuring accuracy and preventing the spread of misinformation.
The Labour figure has settled toward the “herd” number of 45-46% so we have Labour leads of between 16 and 20 points which equates to a GB swing of about 15% from Conservative to Labour. That takes out about half the current Conservative Parliamentary Party on UNS and the question then becomes what tactical voting will bring to the election.
We can, short of a clear political disaster, discount the extinction level polls seen at the end of the Trussite period but the current polling points unambiguously to a heavy defeat for the Conservatives.
Thinking of extinctions, just as we had the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods in the Mesozoic era, we can contemplate the Johnsonian, Trussite and Sunakistic periods in the late Conservative epoch or perhaps not.
This will have been planned and focus grouped to death to maximise votes.
It's probably very smart.
Could be enough for the LAB maj!
Things have deteriorated so much that the average American now has the same healthy life expectancy (years lived in good health) as someone in Blackpool, the town with England’s lowest life expectancy (by far), synonymous with deep-rooted social decline ft.com/blackpool
I think that bears repeating. *The average American* has the same chance of a long and healthy life as someone born in the most deprived part of England, a place with the highest rates of relationship breakdown and some of the highest rates of antidepressant prescribing.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1641799703636369408?m
(And yes, I'm oddly proud of this. I've come a long way, both physically and in terms of distance. And all of that distance was in the UK...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2ySIDtXfg
Incidentally, the first person to walk the world was David Kunst. Quite an amazing (and tragic) story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kunst
With tactical voting that leads to
But that assumes the courts are working OK and the public lawyers are reasonably funded.
A uni colleague of mine went into forensic science (not that particular branch). When we met up for a beer he told me a story of a police tec who was accused of having gone into a crime scene without permission - or worse - as his DNA was found there. Fortunately for him he had cast iron alibis ([edit: timings and video records of the scene). Tirned out that he had simply shaken hands with another detective who then went onto the scene.
Of course this happened with a Scottish police officer but with fingerprints - turned out that the fingerprint routines of x similar points didn't spot the real differences. Caused a major crisis in the reliability of fingerprint ID - not sure if it has been brought up to modern standards.
"Female California police union exec, 64, is charged with running eight-year, global fentanyl operation from her gated community home - and using the union's UPS account to ship the killer drug"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11925473/California-police-union-executive-director-ran-fentanyl-operation-home.html
Andrew Tate and brother to be released into house arrest
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65144651