26% of people in the US. Yeah, just a rounding error.

Why don’t you just say “hi, I don’t know or care that disabled people exist” while you’re at it.

Ok buddy, whatever you say. The fact that you’ve said “matrix” throughout this and consistently referred to them as having a rank of two is telling.

You’re the one who tried to bring up your own modest credentials after I already pointed out that PhDs are focusing on this subject. Don’t get defensive when I point out that they make you sound silly. Your view is wrong.

> i use ml/ai models for my job

Awe inspiring credentials.

I’m telling you that “search engine with a summarize function” is nowhere on the same map as how these models work.

God, people who don’t know the first thing about how these models work have got to stop confidently posting their wrong opinions about how these models work. If you don’t want to study it and read the papers, that’s fine. Nobody would blame you. It’s an incredibly dry and difficult subject. But in that case, you know, just sit down.

If basic explanations don’t convince you, the fact that there’s a boatload of PhDs studying this subject should give you pause. You probably haven’t figured out based on your vaguely informed reckoning that they’re wasting their time.

Well, all the directly sensitive content. LastPass has always been bad about storing metadata in the clear. It doesn’t make it easier for an attacker to get your password, but it does let them narrow down who to try to attack.

That’s the most humiliating part. It’s delicious.

The way they’ve done it is an actual deterrent to theft, and what you’re describing wouldn’t be. I agree that there’s a trade off with sustainability, and maybe it’s the wrong trade off, but at least acknowledge that there’s value to the customer in the approach they’ve taken.

I have two others for you which have become my primary use cases:

• I have a word on the tip of my tongue, and I don’t know a synonym, but I can describe the meaning and connotations

• I have a hunch about a technical subject but it’s hard to google the details based on my knowledge, e.g. “can I split a high current load between two MOSFETs in parallel?” I don’t trust ChatGPT’s answer at face value, but it’ll give me stuff to look up.

Won’t someone please think of Disney and the recording industry.

They’re the defendants in the lawsuit. They’re the only ones who can do this.

They only use it for training. Memorization is just a well known side effect of generative models. It’s not something anyone wants to happen; it’s just hard to prevent in every case.

I addressed that.

I use ChatGPT to solve analytical problems all the time. The key is that you have to tell it to show it’s work:

> If I am leading a sow with seven piglets how many feet are there. Take it step by step > >> The sow has 4 feet

>> Each piglet has 4 feet

>> Total number of piglet feet = 4 * 7 = 28

>> Total number of feet = 4 + 28 = 32

It’s able to keep track of the analysis far better this way, and it also lets you check its work for errors.

Now obviously it left my feet out, but I think that’s a reasonable ambiguity, and not one that you usually find in professional exams. If I ask it to account for that, it gets it right.

No, I'm talking about in general. The editorial standards of the publication you're publishing in may not (and in most cases will not) find Wikipedia to be reliable, which is why you shouldn't cite it in most cases. But it's just another source, and there are contexts when it would be not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary to cite it – for example, if you were studying the content of Wikipedia articles themselves, like this.

> Wikipedia is not a valid source for citation, that’s why it requires citations for edits.

No, Wikipedia requires citations for edits because it’s not a primary source and doesn’t allow original research. Wikipedia is a perfectly valid “source for citation” like any other source, but whoever is reviewing or reading your article may, reasonably, not find it to be a credible source.

Creating disinformation is low effort and low skill, and you can hire people to do it for very little money. Simply producing disinformation at scale is not worrying; bad actors already have all the scale they could ever want.

What would be worrying would be an AI that could craft especially viral disinformation. That is, an algorithm that could model what it is about pizzagate, vaccines and autism, etc. which makes them so contagious, and then design a campaign intended to achieve a specific goal rather than just sowing chaos. I don’t think we’re very close to that technology, and I don’t know of any research that even hints in that direction.

You’re arguing this point from so many directions, I don’t know where to start. I’ll just say this: I have a to do list of projects that I absolutely adore working through, and it just keeps growing, with no end in sight. Every time I push into new territory, it opens up new possibilities, and I think of new things to try. Meanwhile, I can earn plenty of money without being miserable. When I’m 80, I will still have plenty left to do and learn, but my body and mind may no longer be up to it. If we can actually reverse aging, that will no longer be the case.

So I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe your life isn’t interesting enough to enjoy for more than 80 years, but mine sure as hell is.

I don’t think this is a terribly useful question to examine, because you have to decide what you mean by “theoretical”, and because clock speed isn’t typically a goal unto itself unless you work in CPU marketing. Under some definitions, we’re nowhere close to the fastest theoretical clock speed you can achieve with electronics, even though we might be getting there as far as the materials we know about are concerned.

>If you really want to do something more complex or have very specific requirements (such as abusing a specific security hole) it is useless.

I wonder though if you fed in certain CVEs if it could figure it out. I don't want to try it because that sounds like a good way to get kicked off.

I gave it "Please write a parodic stack overflow post by a script kiddie trying to get their malware script to work and failing":

>Hey guys,

>I'm trying to run this malware script I found online and it's not working. I keep getting this error: "failed to execute script." Can anyone help me out? I'm really new to this whole hacking thing, so any help would be appreciated.

>I'm running the script on a Windows 10 machine, if that matters. I tried running it as administrator, but that didn't work either. I also tried using a different antivirus program, just in case that was the problem, but no luck.

>Any ideas? Am I missing something obvious here?

>Thanks in advance for any help!

(Then it told me that both my question and its answer might violate its content policies.)

I like that it slipped in there the implication that the root problem is that the script kiddie is trying to run antivirus on their own script.

Oh I gladly pay for it too, but people are weird about where they’ll let go of money.