Simple enough for everyone to access Claude's full capabilities. I've been using this experience every day for the last few weeks, and it feels awesome. Simpler, faster, and more powerful.
To be clear, bitemark evidence is junk science. There has never been any scientific research to support the idea that bites on human skin can be matched to the teeth of one person, to the exclusion of everyone else.
it's really much easier if you can understand how to center a div as they say if you can vertically center a div in HTML then you can probably learn assembly language I would say
Take Eroom’s Law: the number of new drugs approved per dollar of R&D has fallen for decades, even as our scientific tools have grown vastly more powerful, the exact opposite of what the existence of more raw capability would predict.
I don't understand why anybody would learn the CAP theorem when that theorem exists because it's just more complete. It's not that much more complicated. I think it's more simple to understand.
I think in a lot of ways the data is actually even more of a constraint and um because if you look at like the scale of these models compared to language models they're smaller but they're smaller because the amount of data is less
I think that, you know, the model that we've put together collectively about the relationships between archaic and modern humans is sort of accreted over time. There was this, you know, idea that modern humans are distinct and that Neanderthals and Denisovans are like sisters of each other. And then over time we developed and detected additional mixture events like this modern human into Neanderthal and then this other ones I didn't even talk about like super divergent lineage going into Denisovans and like all this other stuff.
And then I also think um you know right now for matching it's like everything's done at literally the last minute. It's like someone dies, an organ comes available and like you're just kind of calling around trying to find like what patient is available to get this organ and you don't have that much time to make the optimal match, right?
By contrast, AI is increasingly matching the general cognitive profile of humans, which means it will also be good at the new jobs that would ordinarily be created in response to the old ones being automated.
I've worked a lot of companies right but I'm wrong all the time and I think consumer behavior can be very fickle and especially when you work at a company you become a power user naturally. So sometimes you you may forget like what the actual user experience is for a brand new user.
I'm more agnostic about the best techniques, things like sparse autoencoders are a useful tool, but easy to waste effort using when a simpler method is sufficient or better - start by doing the obvious thing!
Very rarely do you transform into a simpler problem. So if they can pick up a sense of smell, then they could maybe start competing with a human level of mathematicians.
I think my personal definition of AGI is much simpler. I think language models are a form of AGI and all of this super powerful stuff is a next step that's great if we get these tools. But a language model has so much value in so many domains that it's a general intelligence to me.
The cost to discover and develop a drug today is orders of magnitude higher than in the 1950s. Despite this, the probability that a drug entering clinical trials will eventually reach the market has hardly improved in the intervening years.
Whether one does find a good spouse or not depends more on one's orientation towards actually building relationships, and whether they can identify non-trivial traits in a partner that would contribute to that.
The problem that companies like Apple need to solve is not preventing exploits forever, but a much simpler one: they need to screw up the economics of NSO-style mass exploitation.
Here we show that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even reaching competitiveness with prior state-of-the-art fine-tuning approaches.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.