Wouldn’t the latest CPI report mean that the FED is less likely to lower interest rates which in turn would mean the high APY cash accounts are going to stay in effect for longer? Meaning a 5% APY on liquid cash without risk.
The only reason I can think of is that Boomers are trying to maximize their retirement funds and not reading anything, not even headlines.
But this wouldn’t take into account the large banks and firms that are really leading the bull run.
Is this really just because of the idea that there is a potential for “AI” to increase productivity?
None of it makes sense to me, but I’m not an economist.
I just used kagi to search for the conversion, and thought the long decimal was funny.
But now that I think of it, does Canada make it’s own 4 L jugs so they can be accurately advertised or do they just use the US 1 gal jugs and call it a 4 L out of convenience but then write in fine print on the bottom that it’s actually 3.79 L?
Unless that is actually a 4L jug of vodka, couldn’t someone sue for misrepresenting the amount of product being sold?
Someone’s liquid here is probably not precise. And I’m going to guess it’s the one claiming to be a larger volume with an additional manufacturing cost.
In today’s market, the perception or even the profitability of a product means nothing. All that actually matters is growth.
For a publicly traded company, or even one that just uses venture capital to start up; the product isn’t the thing that they might sell to consumers, it’s their brand. This is what gives them more capital to continue running the company and ultimately to profit.
This means that a company no longer needs to make good products, they don’t need to keep customers happy, they don’t even need to be profitable. All they need is to show growth opportunities to potential investors.
Maybe it’s this arbitrary word, hallucination? Which was recently borrowed from the human experience to explain why something which normally is factual like a computer is not computing facts.
But if one were to think about it, what is the difference between a series on non factual hallucinations in a model and a person’s individual experience of the world?
If two people eat the same food item they might taste different things.
they might have different definitions of the same word.
they might remember that an object was a different color then someone’s recording could prove. There is a reason why eye witness testimony is considered unreliable in the court of law.
Before, we called these bugs or even issues. But now that it’s in this black box of sorts that we can’t alter the decision making process of as directly as before. There is this more human sounding name all of a sudden.
To clarify, when an llm gets a fact wrong because it has limited context or because it’s foundational model is flawed, is that the same result as the experience someone has after consuming psychedelic mushrooms? No, I wouldn’t say so. Nor is it the same when a team of scientists try to make a model actively hallucinate so they can find new chemical compounds.
Defining words can sometimes be very tricky, especially when they are applying to multiple areas of study. The more you drill into a definition, the more it becomes a metaphysical debate. But it is important to have these discussions because even the definition of something like AGI keeps changing. And infact only exist because the goal posts for a AI moved so much. What will stop a company which is trying to attract investors from just slapping an AGI label on their next release? And how will we differentiate what the spirit of the word is trying to convey from the sales pitch?
Sure there is intentional creative thought. But there are also unintentional creative thoughts. Moments of clarity, eureka moments, and strokes of inspiration. How do we differentiate these?
If we were to say that it is because of our subconscious is intentionally promoting these thoughts. Then we would need a method to test that, because otherwise the difference is moot.
Similar to how one might define the I in AGI it’s hard to form a consensus on general and often vague definitions like these.