There is not enough activity to sustain niche communities.

In this case it is more a feature being called a bug

If we ignore the other poster, do you think the logic in my previous comment is circular?

That was what I was trying to say, I can see that the wording is ambiguous.

I agree, it’s a massive issue. It’s a very complex topic that most people have no way of understanding. It is superb at generating text, and that makes it look smarter than it actually is, which is really dangerous. I think the creators of these models have a responsibility to communicate what these models can and can’t do, but unfortunately that is not profitable.

If a solution is correct then a solution is correct. If a correct solution was generated randomly that doesn’t make it less correct. It just means that you may not always get correct solutions from the generating process, which is why they are checked after.

It’s not circular. LLMs cannot be fluent because fluency comes from an understanding of the language. An LLM is incapable of understanding so it is incapable of being fluent. It may be able to mimic it but that is a different thing. (In my opinion)

It’s not a bug, it’s a natural consequence of the methodology. A language model won’t always be correct when it doesn’t know what it is saying.

It is indeed a stupid meme

How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.

Because if we weren’t then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn’t relevant until you start on your PhD.

Meta holds the record for the largest gdpr fine at 1,2 billion euro.

The link references “a/bc” not “a/b*c”. The first is ambiguous, the second is not.

Assumed by whom? Clearly not everyone.

No one sane is arguing that an expensive mechanical watch is better at telling the time than a cheap quartz watch. If you want accuracy, don’t buy a rolex.

Personally, I think a fancy watch is more comparable to buying an art piece. A painting is not “superior” just because it portraits its subject with more accuracy. Similarly, a watch is not “superior” if it tells the time with more accuracy.

I wear a watch because I like the watch. I like a mechanical watch with an open back so I can look at the gears turning inside. I like the attention to detail in the design. I like how the little hour indicators are polished to a mirror finish. For me, it is a piece of jewelry, that also tells the time.

It is somewhat US specific since the US is more dependent on cars than a lot of European places for example. That makes it harder to make changes that impact car owners negatively.