This is too bad because I rarely want to eat in the mornings. I’ve always skipped breakfast because I can’t build an appetite until lunchtime. I truly enjoy the food during dinner however.
I guess monetizing chatGPT should be simple, I would pay a monthly subscription for it in a heartbeat. Are there any competitors at this point that can match its performance? How hard would it be to replicate?
They give access to text-davinci-003 and code-davinci-002 models through their API which are strongly related.
But they have done massive amounts of refinement and continue to do so I believe. But I think the amount the refinement has helped improve may not be as much as you would think. For example I think a big part of the refinement is the guardrails.
I had a chance to use LAMDA a few times. In my experience, LAMDA produces a slightly better outcome (less BS basically) but not a fundamentally different level. I guess MS won't be the only player in the league.
That’s my question - is it that it’s a huge advance that’s revolutionary or is it an incremental innovation that can be replicated from current state of the art with some effort.
It can be replicated, it's basically clever fine-tuning of GPT-3 with human assistance. Google has model that can do what ChatGPT can for some time already.
Not parent, but basic scripts and programming, debugging, error codes, outlines for emails, reports, dry documents, code translation, brainstorming, explaining code snippets, playing fake text adventure games, creating lists, and on and on.
Anyone saying GPT isn't useful because it's not Wikipedia or right 100% of the time are completely missing the mark and imo, is not able to think outside the box. It's insanely useful.
OMAD (one meal per day) genuinely works with the only caveat being that you need to make sure you’re getting all your nutritional requirements for the day. This means having a larger single meal and taking multivitamins for me. Also I avoid all processed foods, especially processed meat. I’ve been doing it for two years now.
I 100% concur. Canada would benefit by having a population 2-3x current. I am always amazed how in the US there are so many cities with vibrant cultures in the 50-80k range whereas in Canada you can drive vast distances and only find tiny settlements of a few thousand people and no services or culture to speak of.
> Canada would benefit by having a population 2-3x current
What a coincidence, this is exactly what the Century Initiative wants.
Toronto would go from 8.8 to 33.5 million people.
Vancouver from 3.3 to 11.9 million.
Well… I would distribute it differently! I’d look for dozens of more cities in the 75-300k range like the US rather than pushing the growth to 2-3 mega cities.
There's not really that much habitable land in Canada that's not already being used imo.
BC for example is pretty much all mountain and has dammed and flooded many of its habitable river valleys.
In the Prairies the land is already valuably used to export food across the world.
In other parts of Canada it's muskeg and inhospitably cold.
The other thing that everyone always forgets about is that all this "free" land out there is not at all free for the taking: it is under land claims by First Nations. These longstanding unresolved issues will need to be resolved before people can start cutting down forests somewhere and laying out a new main street.
There's plenty of room for more Canadians in the parts of Canada that are already developed, but not a terribly compelling reason for expansion beyond that.
In the Prairies you could put a lot of people on farmland and it wouldn't subtract very much productive capacity and would accommodate a lot of people. A square mile is roughly 800mt of grain give or take most years on prime farmland.. the economic value of that vs the sheer number of people you can house on that space with reasonable density, the tradeoff is a non-issue. (That's why developable land on the edge of Winnipeg trades at $25k/ac and the same land 10 miles away is worth 5-6k/ac.)
Hmm, that does look habitable to me. Moreover, it looks quite nice compared to a lot of places people live in.
Mars, Moon, and some places on Earth defnitely are not habitable (unless very supported), but calling most of the Canada "unhabitable" is more than a stretch.
Very little of the carbon emissions of food come from its transportation.[0] People living in cities have a lower carbon footprint than those living in more suburban areas.[1] We should be allowing more people to live in economically vibrant, low emission cities.
I live in Europe but that's still the case, and apparently it doesn't really affect the carbon footprint because the majority of emissions are last mile.
That remote part of Canada would still be an issue though because it doesn't look like there are any train lines, major rivers or sea access.
Anecdotal tip. It’s next to impossible to drop from daily to weekly. It has to be way more infrequent- like biannual for you to not fall back into daily usage.
Really not all that bad as long as he’s allowed to bring food/alcohol from ports onboard. Does it have a kitchen? Or does he have to always buy overpriced cruise ship food. That seems like it would be the dealbreaker for me.
So the fatal flaw with this is that "feeling threatened" is subjective. A fragile person with zero resilience will feel threatened by you, even if everything you do is harmless.
This makes it unusable as a scale for what is acceptable speech and what is not.
On the other hand, "Everyone should go kill that person" is pretty much universally seen as unacceptable. So you can't get out of the ambiguity by declaring all speech defensible.
The law lives with ambiguities all the time, and has various means of resolving them. They are imperfect, but absolute clarity is not something you can achieve from the law, and it is sometimes counterproductive to try.
Yet another triumph for the bosses of the world; in the absence of unions, automation only profits the owners of the machine, and none of the people who are now performing much less skilled labor gets a better life.
In this case, it's a labor that's already a way to barely scrape by for a lot of its practitioners.
This is the difference. Is this what you are cheering for? Is this the world you want?
You’re relying on multiple meanings of the word “train”. Humans produce new knowledge, art, solutions, etc, without consuming the full body of human created media. It’s hardly even reminiscent of the same things. Humans produce solutions, at times, without ever being trained in a fraction of the vast body of human knowledge. This is not the same as a generative AI.
