More like it does absolutely nothing to "blow up" the mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto, only to clearly demonstrate that Wright isn't Nakamoto. What a bunch of clickbait.
I’ve used these tools on all sorts of network configurations and there’s always lag.
One thing I will say is that this was all within Australia. Surely the packets aren’t going overseas, but perhaps whatever servers they use in AU just aren’t optimised for ultra low latency.
In person I can walk by the person and see if they are available for a quick chat. Typing a novel is a pain when a water cooler chat will work. IF the person is busy then you dont shoulder tap.
I've had it four times, but I've got lung issues, so it's not entirely surprising. First time was before there was a vaccine, and the successive times were half as bad as the previous time. Came very close to dying the first time, that was very unpleasant.
"It is too early to say that the new AI class is an inherently antihuman technological paradigm, as social media has proven itself to be.
But it is not too early to suspect that AIs will dwarf social media in their power to disrupt modern life.
If that is so, we had better learn some new and unfamiliar ways of interrogating this technology, and fast. Whatever these entities are — they’re here." -Ari Schulman
People that mistake an large language model (LLM) for anything other than a LLM make some fundamentally broken assumptions.
Are ChatGPT, Midjourney, etc. a fundamental leap in the state of the art when it comes to allowing computer systems to understand what people mean and return something useful based on it? 100%
Is ChatGPT or the like going to become self-aware, compromise other computer systems, etc? No more than your shoe is going to take over your foot.
There's far too many people worried about "AI" that don't have enough context to realize they're fearing a non-sentient tool that has zero agency, and will not for the foreseeable future.
> Is ChatGPT or the like going to become self-aware, compromise other computer systems, etc? No more than your shoe is going to take over your foot.
Agreed. It's strange though, to be honest I don't see much if any worry about self awareness, i think anyone who knows anything understands that's not the issue. The "issue" if you can call it that is how it will impact society from a labor and content perspective. How much synthetic content will be perceived as true and assumed to be correct simply because we haven't had time to adapt to the fact that the rate of synthetic content is exponential now.
> How much synthetic content will be perceived as true and assumed to be correct simply because we haven't had time to adapt to the fact that the rate of synthetic content is exponential now.
That will be a problem for sure. But people believe all sorts of easy to debunk things already and that list is ever-expanding, so I don't know if there's any cure for it.
As far as content goes, I think human beings writing out boilerplate anything is something that's not long for this world.
Labor is a trickier one to judge, but I'm not too worried about a large negative impact in the immediate future.
People thought that modern appliances would usher in a new age of leisure, and the truth was that while they removed a lot of drudgery, work expanded to fill the vacuum and the percentage of the week spent laboring didn't significantly decrease.
On a positive note, I think the kind of work people are subject to now is better because of modern appliances, so I wouldn't be surprised if the same holds true for all the labor problems that can be handled by neural net / LLMs.
Yep, but beware of anyone who makes criticism their identity. That's a mindset that predetermines perception.
As math consultant to "A Beautiful Mind" I waited six hours so Russell Crowe could ask me where to look when he declared that Jennifer Connelly's solution to the blackboard problem was wrong. He cared about details. Then Jennifer asked me if I was making her look like a yahoo. I explained that in testing a professor had given her answer.
Various people get wigged out that the young student in the late library scene was spouting math that was well known. Um, ever been a student? I'd made this same observation to Barry Mazur in the hallway as a student, and he just grinned, "It's all connected!" Meanwhile, no one addressed my partial proof of the Riemann Hypothesis that Nash had left on a board.
In the Harvard Lecture Hall scene, Nash compared space-time to the quaternions. Um, he was about to be institutionalized? I knew I had to use this line after the look Brian Greene gave me when I tried it on him. Still, it bothers critics.
Ron Howard found it helpful to think of the math as an actor. That was great direction for me.
I haven't seen that movie, but yeah, cringe violin aside, that's both a very realistic example of a simple Olympiad-style problem and an actually valid math proof!
