Alternate take: I want something that does B, so I research methods of doing B and find one that’s good. Good thing I’m a smart boy that doesn’t make purchasing decisions based on what the marketing department says things do.
There’s plenty of good reasons to criticize or be concerned about LLMs. You don’t need to make up dumb ones.
Sure, but false advertising has nothing to do with how good an invention is, that’s a marketing problem.
No? I have a pair of shoes that advertise as being great for running and walking. I love walking in them, but they suck for running. Are you saying the shoes suck and I shouldn’t use them at all, even though I like walking in them?
Tools don’t care about intent, and neither should you. Only things that work and things that don’t. And if it doesn’t work, you should use a different tool.
I think they’re making a joke that one of the definitions of “revolution” is making a complete circle. In the cartoon, “reform” is making a ton of revolutions.
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think part of why it sucks now is all the Search Engine Optimization, of people trying to game Google into showing you their website, and only necessarily the one most pertinent to your search
I’m always reminded of https://youtu.be/ZI0w_pwZY3E?si=MM_jYb2Xey7Hz-zb for Skype
I mean, I guess, but that’s only a selling point to the small number of people without smartphones, which isn’t a large enough group to make it a sound business strategy.
Also, the “(after federal incentives)” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The basic option for the 2023 Bolt comes out to about $20K after federal incentives, but you get way more range and a bunch of those “luxury” features this is missing. Considering how cheap low-end smart phones are, I have a hard time imagining that infotainment systems actually add more than 1-2% of the cost of the vehicle. Feels more like a type of virtue signal than a real cost-saving measure.
Corporations cannot create nontoxic social media, the incentives will always be there to make it toxic.
I don’t know that’s true. The incentives to make it toxic come from engagement being the goal, which is a function of advertising being the income. I’m not advocating for it, but if there were a flat subscription and no ads, I don’t think they’d have any economic pressures for toxicity.
Definitely a fair question; at least for the large bodies of water near me, before they let you park and take your vessel in, they check the registration on it. I’m doing that, they can check what other bodies of water you’ve taken the vessel to and how recently, and can then determine whether or not it’s safe for you to bring it into that one.
I don’t actually know what the recourse is if it’s not safe, if they make you spray it down thoroughly there, or completely refuse entry, or something else. My information here is from a vague memory of a sign at a lake parking area that was titled “Why do I need to register?” or something like that.
I think this is pretty common, I think part of the reason is so that you don’t accidentally introduce critters/eggs from one body of water to another
I’m always reminded of https://youtu.be/M6dWG18HnOo?si=6VyysSwkj5lD3AEc
That implies management is held accountable
Bear in mind, with this liberal interpretation, any time you access a website, that is also consuming someone’s labor and if you don’t have a subscription to it, it is unpaid.
One note on “sick” being slang for “good”: that particular slang started in the 80s, and some of the younger generation consider it to be old person slang.
I’d say it’s not just misleading but incorrect if it says “integer” but it’s actually floats.
I think to some extent it’s a matter of scale, though. If I advertise something as a calculator capable of doing all math, and it can only do one problem, it is so drastically far away from its intended purpose that the meaning kinda breaks down. I don’t think it would be wrong to say “it malfunctions in 99.999999% of use cases” but it would be easier to say that it just doesn’t work.
Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, if we did the disgusting work of precomputing all 2 number math problems for integers from -1,000,000 to 1,000,000 and I think you could say you had a (really shitty and slow) calculator, which “malfunctions” for numbers outside that range if you don’t specify the limitation ahead of time. Not crazy different from software which has issues with max_int or small buffers.
If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction (and we wouldn’t be having this conversation). If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software. 99.999% of the time, it’d be better to say that it just doesn’t work. I don’t think there is, or even needs to be, some unified understanding of where the line is between them.
Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people’s use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.
We’re talking about the meaning of “malfunction” here, we don’t need to overthink it and construct a rigorous proof or anything. The creator of the thing can decide what the thing they’re creating is supposed to do. You can say
hey, it did X, was that supposed to happen?
no, it was not supposed to do that, that’s a malfunction.
We don’t need to go to
Actually you never sufficiently defined its function to cover all cases in an objective manner, so ACTUALLY it’s not a malfunction!
Whatever, it still wasn’t supposed to do that
Has science gone too far?