This cracked me up.
balder1991
Yeah, adults should be able to tell the difference between someone disagreeing with them and someone being rude/trolling.
I don’t think I ever needed to block anyone, but I kinda stopped commenting as much nowadays cause I realized a lot of times people just don’t understand something and say things out of ignorance + pretentiousness, immediately attacking whoever correct what they’re saying. I don’t think there’s a way out of that in these kinds of open discussion threads, unfortunately, because it’s not exactly bad faith.
There’s a difference between OpenAI storing conversations and the LLM being able to search all your previous conversations in every clean session you start.
Always has been. Nothing has changed.
The fact that OpenAI stores all input typed doesn’t mean you can make a prompt and ChatGPT will use any prior information as context, unless you had that memory feature turned on (which allowed you to explicitly “forget” what you choose from the context).
What OpenAI stores and what the LLM uses as input when you start a session are totally separate things. This update is about the LLM being able to search your prior conversations and referencing it (using it as input, in practice), so saying “Nothing has changed” is false.
Maybe for training new models, which is a totally different thing. This update is like everything you type will be stored and used as context.
I already never share any personal thing on these cloud-based LLMs, but it’s getting more and more important to have a local private LLM on your computer.
They’re made to be inoffensive and generic, in a way that shelters companies from being sued.
It’s more accurate to say they might be, but not necessarily. China is very aware of the benefits of keeping ahead technologically.
Well yeah, but the article is about a paper that’s showing a strategy to improve planning capabilities in comparison to using LLMs as they are currently. It’s just research, they’re not saying to use that in production now, and I’d say it isn’t something the researchers are even worried about for this particular artifact.
I think the problem is there’s just too much work that needs to be put in these things and people don’t really think about it. Android has at this point almost 2 decades of refining the experience for phones, so it’s a good starting point.
But the most important thing I guess is software. People often neglect how much time and effort is put to refine software to the point it becomes polished and bug free. Android has a mature stack to build apps that is very difficult to replicate.
But to be more clear I didn’t mean just getting a degoogled Android and settle with it. Android could also evolve in other ways that aren’t in Google’s interest, such as allowing you to have a sort of Dex that’s actually a Linux Desktop Environment.
It’s much less effort to have something based on Android open source project though.
In reality, this doesn’t affect the existing batteries we have, it’s just for future battery technology.