I’d say that a measurement always trumps arguments. At least you know how accurate they are, this statement cannot follow from reason:
The JAMA study found that 12.5% of ChatGPT’s responses were “hallucinated,” and that the chatbot was most likely to present incorrect information when asked about localized treatment for advanced diseases or immunotherapy.
What are “broad anti woke policies” to you?
So beautiful spots on his belly, is that a savannah?
The whole article and the report, nowhere is it explained how they get their numbers. What fuel prices or electricity prices have they used, what mileage for the cars. It’s kind of crucial info, and not really difficult to calculate either.
Tbh if you use Google (or YouTube) for the first time the cookie consent popup also takes up the entire screen
I bought it years ago because it was the most accurate on tracking sleep. The fact that the battery lasts a week is also great. I wonder if there’s been any new tests on the other metrics (heart rate, temperature etc)
It be better if they distinguished between both types of recall, it appears they are grouped together.
Idk man, I’m pretty sure I can find all of those words in a dictionary.
No we also transfer generic material to similar looking (but not too similar looking) people and then teach those new people the pattern matching.
My point: Reductionism just isn’t useful when discussing intelligence.
My thoughts exactly
That type of reductionism isn’t really helpful. You can describe the human brain to also just be pattern recognition algorithms. But doing that many times, at different levels, apparently gets you functional brains.
You don’t believe the result?