Readit NewsJust today I asked Claude what year over year inflation was and it gave me 2023 to 2024.
I also thought some sites ban A.I. crawling so if they have the best source on a topic, you won't get it.
I don't currently subscribe to Gemini but on A.I. Studio's free offering when I upload a non OCR PDF of around 20 pages the software environment's OCR feeds it to the model with greater accuracy than I've seen from any other source.
Which is to say, your stance might not be as controversial as you think, since it was the adult take in a children's cartoon almost 60 years ago.
Lucy isn't actually a psychologist which is part of the reason the "gag" is funny.
The first reason is that it is true. All of the best evidence suggests a minor male advantage on g and a major advantage in more specific abilities, such as mental rotation. See https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/04/the-claim-of-substantia...
It is easy to see why that would be the case from an evolutionary point of view. Ironically, your own post contains a clue: in a male-dominated society where men are far more valued for their intelligence than women, such differences are bound to arise.
The egalitarian bad faith interpretation of this claim is that any man is smarter than Marie Curie. What it actually says is that a hypothetical Mario Curie would almost certainly outshine his real-life counterpart.
The other reason is related to sexual selection. Even if a certain man is less intelligent or physically weaker than most women, it may be adaptive for him to pretend otherwise. What beliefs come to dominate in a given population is determined by reproductive success, not directly by their truth value.
https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...
It's not hyperbole - that it's an accurate description at a small scale was the core insight that enabled the large scale.
If your gushing fits a 0.5b it probably doesn't tell us much about A.I. capabilities.
- An ability to curve back into the past and analyze historical events from any perspective, and summon the sources that would be used to back that point of view up.
- A simulator for others, providing a rubber duck inhabit another person's point of view, allowing one to patiently poke at where you might be in the wrong.
- Deep research to aggregate thousands of websites into a highly structured output, with runtime filtering, providing a personalized search engine for any topic, at any time, with 30 seconds of speech.
- Amplification of intent, making it possible to send your thoughts and goals "forward" along many different vectors, seeing which bear fruit.
- Exploration of 4-5 variant designs for any concept, allowing rapid exploration of any design space, with style transfer for high-trust examples.
- Enablement of product craft in design, animation, and micro-interactions that were eliminated as tech boomed in the 2010's as "unprofitable".
It's a possibility space of pure potential, the scale of which is limited only by one's own wonder, industriousness, and curiosity.
People can use it badly - and engagement-aligned models like 4o are cognitive heroin - but the invention of LLMs is an absolute wonder.
This hyperbole would describe any LLM of any size and quality, including a 0.5b model.
It also has weird "subversive" dialogue about sacrifice being bad that doesn't really fit what's happening in the movie itself where sacrifice of two characters saves the day. Which is "subversive" in the sense that a movie with dialogue saying "this is a shitty movie plot" is subversive.
It also rips off the ending of Return of the Jedi by killing the main bad guy so is "subversive" in that it trolls whoever was stuck making episode 9 without a functional villain.
"A.I. and humans are as different as chalk and cheese."
As aphorisms are a good way to think about this topic?