I consult in some companies that don’t even allow copy/paste in outlook. Like, these are actually MS security policies that can be set.

How in all of the actual fucks could they allow MS to see everything on your screen.

I agree with your non starter assessment.

Oh they got it.

That is a measure of exactly nothing.

https://www.nme.com/photos/30-minutes-or-less-19-famous-songs-written-at-staggering-speed-1422651

Your post makes it very clear that you have little experience in the creative world. There is no linear measure of successs or quality. You do a great disservice to those toiling with their creativity by making comments such as this one. We need artists, they are fragile things and should be treated with care.

I didn’t start this post planning to get hetup but I do feel that taking umbrage to your comment is fair, if not tautological.

I would encourage you to labour over a still life or wrestle a passable rendition of your favourite guitar riff. Try sing the first phrase of your favourite song in key. Trust me: none of those things are easy.

If you don’t like “Orange” then just look at something else and hold your tongue.

Is this real though? Does ChatGPT just literally take whole snippets of texts like that? I thought it used some aggregate or probability based on the whole corpus of text it was trained on.

When you paste that code you do it in your private IDE, in a dev environment and you test it thoroughly before handing it off to the next person to test before it goes to production.

Hitting up ChatPPT for the answer to a question that you then vomit out in a meeting as if it’s knowledge is totally different.

Agreed. Reddit now has ai generated echo chambers.

Echo chambers were literally the biggest issue with that site. Now it chatGPTs itself?

Ew.

Found the round-earther.

I too have underestimated the glee of right wing trolls at twitters turn around. They are keeping it alive somehow.

Incorrect. 15 years in the industry here. Good day.

deleted by creator

I said good day.

I’m not going to bother arguing with you but for anyone reading this: the poster above is making a bad faith semantic argument.

In the strictest technical terms AI, ML and Deep Learning are district, and they have specific applications.

This insufferable asshat is arguing that since they all use fuel, fire and air they are all engines. Which’s isn’t wrong but it’s also not the argument we are having.

@OP good day.

You have inadvertently made an excellent argument for freedom of / unregulated speech online and in other spaces.

I know however that in practice people think the bad thing, say it and then find a million voices to echo it and instead of learning they become radicalised.

But your post outlines the idealistic view.

A tale as old as time. The old analyst developer with cobwebs behind his ears gets sacked because of CIOs shiny new materia. Only to be rehired within the quarter at a consultant fee the time his previous salary.

That’s not what I said.

What I typed there is not my opinion.

This the technical, industry distinction between AI and things like ML and Neural networks.

“Mimicking living things” is obviously not exclusive to AI. It is exclusive to AI as compared to ML, for instance.

Technically speaking AI is any effort on the part of machines to mimic living things. So computer vision for instance. This is distinct from ML and Deep Learning which use historical statistical data to train on and then forecast or simulate.

IIRC there was a random number generator website where the machine was hookup up to a potato or some shit.

LLMs (the models that “hallucinate” is most often used in conjunction with) are not Deep Learning normie.