Some TV is already like this. I recall critics of Teletubbies complaining about the repeated statements and actions (Tinky-Winky says "Again! Again!"). Then I spent time in Asia and all their popular entertainment (eg Running Man) continually repeats the last 10 seconds of each action. It's crazy making to me, but it evidently is what the viewers like.
The "user" is only half of a human anyway, 50% is the max consciousness people spend on whatever Netflix they have running as background noise. That's the target audience Netflix is optimizing for: half-humans. Saves them lots of bandwidth, expenses for quality, and yes, it needs a solid amount of exposition[0] to work.
I question whether it matters any more. AI chat is clearly going to be the search interface of the future. phones are the channel for users with Chrome/android being one half and iphone being the other. Google just signed up Apple to be the engine for siri. We also know that users rarely change defaults.
so, google would appear to have boxed out openai from the #1 use case, and already have all the pieces in place to monetize it. This move by OAI isnt surprising, but is it too late to matter?
I'm not sure your logic connects. With respect to "OpenAI being boxed out from [Siri]", advertisement revenue comes neither too late nor too early. Whether or not OpenAI had advertising would not have substantially affected Apple's decision to go with Google's LLM at this time.
If you meant it in a different context, you didn't explain any of the actual context you had in mind.
My question is why anyone would continue to use OpenAI to look things up when existing "default" apps like Google search on Android and Siri on iphone will have excellent AI powered search.
Certainly, for indepth questions like writing term papers, someone might fire up OAI, but that doesnt automatically seem like as giant a moneymaker as simply being the fall-off-the-log easy choice for search.
Postel's Law strikes again. What's the point of having RFCs with MUST and SHOULD if everyone does what they need? You end up with French cafe[0] implementations.
> "ongoing lack of for-hire carrier profitability is the main bottleneck for improved new vehicle demand. While supply has started to come out of the market, demand is soft, with cyclical freight generating sectors lagging"
The quoted comment from an analyst is interesting, they think the drop in sales is because freight carriers arent making enough money to justify buying new trucks.
Is that because we are buying less, hence less to move around? Or buying more locally/fewer imports, hence less big rig miles needed? Or because of industry consolidation, eg Amazon shipping not generating work amongst any other truckers except Amazon?
Dont confuse economics with politics. Commenter may simply be pointing out that a government already well known for its distaste of higher education institutions might decide that taking the money from them in one fell swoop and instantly wiping out student debt is vastly preferable to annoying a swath of voters that could make a difference in the midterms.
Its the next illogical step after cutting funding. Take funds from them, maybe even eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture is probably on the table too.
> suggests a way forward will come from formalising natural language arguments
If by this you mean "reliably convert expressions made in human natural language to unambiguous, formally parseable expressions that a machine can evaluate the same way every time"... isn't that essentially an unreachable holy grail? I mean, everyone from Plato to Russell and Wittgenstein struggled with the meaning of human statements. And the best solution we have today is to ask the human to restrict the set of statement primitives and combinations that they can use to a small subset of words like "const", "let foo = bar", and so on.
Whether the Holy Grail is unreachable or not is the question. Of course, the problem in full generality is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't be approached in various partial ways, either by restricting the inputs as you suggest or by coming up with some kind of evaluation procedures that are less strict than formal verifiability. I don't have any detailed proposals tbh
IIRC one reason was that Azure Active Directory bore little technical relation to Active Directory and it was endlessly confusing to customers. Especially as AAD evolved into an identity system and away from a directory.
Trivial example is that AAD doesnt do LDAP, unlike regular AD which was built on it. It's not surprising that some PM would keep "AD" in the name of AADto make the transition to cloud seem less scary, but after a few years its actively unhelpful as the majority of customers have made the switch to cloud based auth and identity.
Not a lawyer, but for the last 20+ years I've dragged around (or recreated) a normal.dot file that has all the styles I use with the keybindings I like.
The productivity boost you get from having a consistent environment is insane. You never need to care about the ribbon, your documents look good, and your mouse/keyboard ergonomics are wonderful with a good normal.dot.
It's like people who have their vimrc or emacs config down to a fine art.
reply