I am 100% not convinced. It seems incredibly obvious that if you have a building that you can’t jump the windows of, do want at least two avenues of escape in the event of a fire?. What moron is arguing otherwise? If you want to argue that then show me statistics.

Also fuck whoever created that website, a constant upward scrolling was awful.

When waymo was first getting qualified, they had human drivers too. Once they had so many miles, they quit needing the humans.

This is the real take away from all this. xAI is trying hard to keep up with the big-boys and has to pay a shit ton of money just to be in the game. xAI’s revenue will be in the deep red for a long time at this rate.

“digging thru trash and bunch of obscure websites for info, using critical thinking to filter and refine your results”

You’re highlighting a barrier to learning that in and of itself has no value. It’s like arguing that kids today should learn cursive because you had to and it exercises the brain! Don’t fool yourself into thinking that just because you did something one way that it’s the best way. The goal is to learn and find solutions to problems. Whatever tool allows you to get there the easiest is the best one.

Learning through textbooks and one way absorption of information is not an efficient way to learn. Having the ability to ask questions and challenge a teacher (in this case the AI), is a far superior way to learn IMHO.

The thing is… AI is making me smarter! I use AI as a learning tool. The absolute best thing about AI is the ability to follow up questions with additional questions and get a better understanding of a subject. I use it to ask about technical topics and flush out a better understanding that I ever got from just a text book. I have seem some instances of hallucinating in the past, but with the current generation of AI I’ve had very good results and consider it an excellent tool for learning.

For reference I’m an engineer with over 25 years of experience and I am considered an expert in my field.

I had my conspiracy theory ex brother in law explain that chem trails were things Biden added to jets to fight global warming… My response was “shit, I wish that was true!”

Somehow that wasn’t the answer he was expecting.

No, no they didn’t. I’ve been through a number Republican presidents… Well 3 others … And not one of them was said to be a threat to democracy, not one of them was said to be a threat to the rule of law, and not one of them was it questioned whether they would leave office if they lost election.

It is a bullshit statement to say Trump is a standard Republican and what Democrats are saying is just hyperbole, and this is what they always say. The only way you can possibly think this is if you’ve only been exposed to Trump presidencies.

Removed by mod

Yeah, I 100% agree about the chivalry and dating. And as soon as you say the woman is as strong as me (from a competence, intellect, and emotional standpoint) and is an equal partner in a relationship, a lot of the chivalry stuff doesn’t make sense.

Hey, you do you. I have no problem with it if it comes naturally. But any sort of expectation here just gives me the cringe-shivers. If the woman expects someone to open the door for her, yikes! If the man expects that he’s the one to open the car door for the woman, yikes! And the basis of this thread seemed to be more around a woman expecting to have the car door opened for her which is why I wrote what I wrote.

I always found the concept of a man opening a car door for a woman exceptionally insulting to women. I’ll open doors for people when I’m walking with them, man or woman, but running ahead of a woman to open the car door for them is cringeworthy * 10. I get second-hand embarrassment shivers just thinking about doing it on a first date.

I like strong, independent, and capable women who are perfectly able to open car doors for themselves. Women who can hold their own in a conversation, are comfortable splitting a check, who are smart and educated, and who don’t need to me protect them like they are delicate flowers. I have never been with or talked with a woman in my social group (that I know of) who expected a man to open a car door for them.

I think I’m lucky, but I also have both. I enjoy what I do and I make good money. They still have to pay me to do it, I wouldn’t do it for free, but overall I love it.

(Engineering manager for R&D at a small / mid-sized company)

It’s really looking at a delayed gratification scenario. You hate working but make good money and then eventually you enjoy having money. In the end, it can be a lot of suffering for the long term money.

Human vision is great, human attention is not and neither is their reaction time. Computers are 100x better at both of those. If you throw lidar into the mix, then a car’s vision is now much better than a humans.

IMHO self driving cars have to be statistically 10x better than humans to be widely implemented. If it passes that threshold them I’m fine with them.

I’m assuming it’s a cost because it makes sense to me. His goal was to build full-self-driving (FSD) into ever car and sell the service as a subscription.

If you add another $500 in components then that’s a lot of cost (probably a lot cheaper today but this was 10 years ago). Cameras are cheap and can be spread around the car with additional non-FSD benefits where as lidar has much fewer uses when the cost is not covered. I think he used his “first-principles” argument as a justification to the engineers as another way for him to say “I don’t want to pay for lidar, make it work with the cheap cameras.”

Why else would management take off the table an obviously extremely useful safety tool?

He didn’t think they were better. He thought Tesla could get away without the more expensive lidar. Basically “humans can drive with just vision, that should be enough for an autonomous vehicle also.” Basically he did it because lidar is more expensive.

I think this all has to do with how you are going to compare and pick a winner in intelligence. the traditional way is usually with questions which llms tend to do quite well at. they have the tendency to hallucinate, but the amount they hallucinate is less than the amount they don’t know in my experience.

The issue is really all about how you measure intelligence. Is it a word problem? A knowledge problem? A logic problem?.. And then the issue is, can the average person get your question correct? A big part of my statement here is at the average person is not very capable of answering those types of questions.

In this day and age of alternate facts and vaccine denial, science denial, and other ways that your average person may try to be intentionally stupid… I put my money on an llm winning the intelligence competition versus the average person. In most cases I think the llm would beat me in 90% of the topics.

So, the question to you, is how do you create this competition? What are the questions you’re going to ask that the average person’s going to get right and the llm will get wrong?

I asked gemini and ChatGPT (the free one) and they both got it right. How many people do you think would get that right if you didn’t write it down in front of them? If Copilot gets it wrong, as per eletes’ post, then the AI success rate is 66%. Ask your average person walking down the street and I don’t think you would do any better. Plus there are a million questions that the LLMs would vastly out perform your average human.

Then asking it a logic question. What question are you asking that the llms are getting wrong and your average person is getting right? How are you proving intelligence here?

You say this like this is wrong.

Think of a question that you would ask an average person and then think of what the LLM would respond with. The vast majority of the time the llm would be more correct than most people.