Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Simply because current tools are somewhat adaptable doesn't imply this tool must be more so. There is actually zero guarantee of that. You're expecting of level of generalization that LLMs simply don't exhibit. If the website is within its training set or very similar to a website within its training set, it should work. But, website design changes fairly regularly. Amd many changes designed to promote usability actually confuse human users and result in lessened usability until the person becomes accustomed to it. That is simple for a human to do, but much more complicated for an LLM. Any a change that confuses a person is likely to also confuse an LLM like this. I also question the idea of using this product for web interaction generally. The applications where it might make sense are better served by dedicated APIs because those are more direct interactions and programs interfacing with them are less susceptible to errors. As to this being a solution to data entry, I think that is questionable as well. Many such positions have been replaced by automation already where it makes sense. And that automation is much more reliable than anything demonstrated by OpenAI. Your belief that lower accuracy is rates would still be beneficial is also questionable. Garbage in/ garbage out is common saying in the industry for a reason. High volume of a garbage in isn't inherently useful just because there is a lot of it. Usually it just means it will cost more to fix.
  2. Why do you think he is wrong? Currently, the system is of questionable reliability by OpenAI's own admission. Given how training it works, it isn't clear how adaptable this process would be to changes in website design to the extent the tasks interact with a website. If the tool isn't near 100% reliable and accurate, it isn't clear what value it brings. Right now, it is essentially a Rube Goldberg version of macros and web scraping.
  3. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Those are very valid points he is making.
  4. You're a fucking idiot.
  5. Previous posters are right in the sense that changing administrations does give us an opportunity to explore new, more aggressive approaches. There were certainly elements of the prior administration that were overly cautious (in my view) in their approach to Russia. I don't think the current administration is so constrained and if it believes taking a hardline against Russia is in its personal best interests, it will do so. And I think that is something that could happen. But, we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing that prior actions suggest that is what this administration will do. If we take a more aggressive stance, it'll take a shift of both US policy and a shift of this administrations prior views. I'm hopeful that someone makes the right argument to make that change to happen.
  6. It is also going to vary quite a bit based upon how you count the value of aid. For instance, if the US sends 30 modern MBT tanks and Poland sends 30 modern MBT tanks, Ukraine got 30 tanks each, but the US donation will appear 5x bigger in dollar amount. And then there is the whole thing where the vast majority of "aid" approved by Congress is really aid to US manufacturers, not really money or items going to Ukraine. And, to be clear, I'm not critical of this approach at all. I'm just pointing out the accounting difficulties that arise as a result.
  7. 🙄 Yeah, the same guy that withdrew us from the INF treaty and then bragged about and pushed us to build more nuclear missiles is really concerned about the negative consequences of expanding the nuclear arsenal (and, to be clear, I'm not sure he was even wrong about those decisions). Can we stop making shit up please?
  8. That's horrifying. It looks like when the t1000 died in the smelter.
  9. My condolences. You need to talk with a probate/estates attorney. What you'll need from there will depend on the amount and type of assets. If there was no will, then what she wanted is largely irrelevant.
  10. Oregon? The team that was down by 34-0 in the first half of its final game?
  11. Why? That's stupid. I think this might be end for you here.
  12. Imagine Quinn needing to complete that. Probably sails 10 yards out of bounds lol. Will Howard is clutch. Ewers isn't. 4th and 13.
  13. Convincing Notre Dame to use their TOs with this conservative calls may end up working out for Ohio State if they convert.
  14. Snapping the ball with 12 seconds left on the play clock?
  15. Kirby acting like Ohio State moved the ball up and down the field on Texas. They had less than 300 yards of offense. Statistically, that game was dead even.
  16. Huh.. Notre Dame also has a third and goal in the 4th from inside the 10.
  17. Losing by 2000 points should nullify any rubber match requirements.
  18. If Day manages to lose this game, he might actually get fired.
×
×
  • Create New...