Is chassis manufacturing more difficult than it seems
Yes, I remember watching a video explaining how the bend on the side of an Audi differs between cheaper and more expensive models due to ease of manufacturing. That makes intuitive sense too: a nicely carved stick is more valuable and takes more time to make than one that’s simply had the bark removed. The body design of a Lamborghini is orders of magnitude more elaborate than that of a VW Golf so ofcourse it's going to also cost much more.
Not exactly what you asked but while I do like fruits I don't like them in salads. I also don't like sweet and salty mixed together though there are some exceptions like pineapple in pizza.
Thanks.
Well, I don’t think OpenAI knows how to build AGI, so that’s false. Otherwise, Sam’s statement there is technically correct, but kind of misleading - he talks about AGI and then, in the next sentence, switches back to AI.
Sergey’s claim that they will achieve AGI before 2030 could turn out to be true, but again, he couldn’t possibly know that. I’m sure it’s their intention, but that’s different from reality.
Elon’s statement doesn’t even make sense. I’ve never heard anyone define AGI like that. A thirteen-year-old with an IQ of 85 is generally intelligent. Being smarter than the smartest human definitely qualifies as AGI, but that’s just a weird bar. General intelligence isn’t about how smart something is - it’s about whether it can apply its intelligence across multiple unrelated fields.
Is there a link where I could see them making these claims myself? This is something I’ve only heard from AI critics, but never directly from the AI companies themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, but I’ve just never seen them say it outright.
It's AI, not AGI. LLM's are good at generating language just like chess engines are good at chess. ChatGPT doesn't have the capability to keep track of all the pieces on the board.
Absolutely. In-fact, me is who I most often hang with.
What would you debate him on?
Fascism won’t kill you. I hope you don’t actually believe that - and if you do, I’d genuinely recommend finding someone to talk to.
As for your question: yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you’re most likely consuming way too much news, which has undoubtedly contributed to feeling that way. But the false assumption you seem to be making is that if you stop reading the news, you’ll be completely oblivious to what’s going on around you. If you truly don’t want to know what’s happening in the world, you’d have to go live alone in the forest and never talk to anyone again. Otherwise, you’re going to hear about most things anyway - and if, by some miracle, you manage to entirely avoid hearing about something, it almost certainly wasn’t important in the first place.
No one is obligated to consume the news at the cost of their mental health. Reading the news doesn’t fix the world. “Staying informed” doesn’t fix the world. Talking about politics online doesn’t fix the world. If someone wants to do something about it, then do something about it.
Horseshoe theory in action here.
Wishing death on 150+ million people because of their political beliefs doesn’t make you righteous. You’ve looped all the way around to becoming the exact thing you claim to oppose.
What does winning mean in this case? That every single person watching that debate concludes that I was right and the other person was wrong? What about if I'm objectively wrong? Do I still win?
Yet even on Lemmy people can't seem to make sense of these terms and are saying things like "LLM's are not AI"
I bet you just made that up.