asmoranomar

Well, it's not that I was replying to you specifically. You just happened to be the random winner of "why isn't there a reply all?". I am aware we (and not just you and I) share similar a opinion.

Touche, lol. You are exactly right.

But my point stands. It doesn't have to be sci-fi intelligent, it just has to convince you it is. There have always been people who are not experts trying to explain things they know little about. AI just does that very well, and as you point out, AI (for now) understands nothing.

I'm not actually saying "LLM's are not AI", that's the sarcastic trap. What I am implying is that some people aren't as intelligent enough to know the difference. It bounces on the original comment that unless you ask it something you're very knowledgeable in, AI feels very 'right'. But people only read the first sentence and have a meltdown.

It's just Ironic that ChatGPT does a much better job at explaining what I said. Does that mean it's more intelligent than me? What about the intelligence of the people who missed the sarcasm? I find it amusing.

You guys are taking this way too seriously for a sarcastic remark. Perhaps you should put what I said into ChatGPT to have it explained. It seems to understand what I said well. Thanks for the bias check guys

I'm sorry, I thought my definition of sarcasm was accurate.

Thank you for confirming what I said.

It's sarcasm. And yes, a joke. Along the same lines as 'Think of your average person, and realize half the population is dumber'.

LLM's are not AI. Calling it as such says more about the person than the technology. And then I realize, they might be right... /s

This. At some point, everything just happened to be 'AI'. It's stupid.

To put it in perspective, I just watched a YouTube video where someone claimed that they wrote a program to win at minesweeper using AI. All of it was handwritten conditional checks and there was no training element to it. It plays the same way every time, but since minesweeper is random by nature it 'appears' to be doing something different. Worse, to 'win' is just to beat a level under a certain time, not to improve upon that time or improve win rates.

The sad thing is that various levels of AI are/were defined, but marketing is doing a successful job at drowning out fact checkers. Lots of things that weren't considered AI now are. You have media claiming Minecraft is AI because it makes use of procedural generation -- Let's forget the fact that Diablo came out years earlier and also uses it.... No the important thing is that the foundation for neural networks were being laid as early as the 1940's and big projects over the years using supercomputers like DeepBlue, Summit, and others are completely ignored.

AI has been around, it's been defined, and it's not here yet. We have glorified auto-complete bots that happen to be wrong to a tolerable point so businesses have an excuse to layoff people. While there are some amazing things it can do sometimes, the AI I envisioned as a child doesn't exist quite yet.

Oh, it was satire. I thought I was pretty clear, but I should have known better. Either that or it wasn't funny. I can deal with that too.

To progressively make games worse in the hope that customers finally get to experience their last final fantasy game and regret it before they die. It is foretold that one amongst them will rise up in the afterlife, become a warrior of light, and strike the gods down to deny such a cruel fate. On that day, SE will have fulfilled its prophecy...and somehow it ends with chocobos and moogles.

I feel that a lot of discussion is by people who have never taken ozempic or have and are successful with its treatment. For what it's worth, I'd like to give some insight to my own experience with it and why I'm not on it.

I won't talk about all my medical issues, but to make it very broad - I have type 2 and a genetic disorder regarding my ability to metabolize. I was put on a trial of ozempic because of its apparent effectiveness.

While on it, one of the first things I noticed that no one seems to talk about (so I don't know if it's just me or not): the feeling of being sated and hungry are two different feelings. It was weird being hungry and full all the time. A bit torturous, but something I felt was manageable.

Unfortunately, even on the lowest dosage, the sated feeling was so strong I felt nauseous all the time. It eventually became a problem when I started becoming dehydrated because I couldn't even keep a glass of water down.

I was removed from the medication and I had persistent side-effects afterwards. It's been years now and while the side effects have diminished, I still get random bouts of nausea for no apparent reason. It's unrelated to when I eat or drink, but it's something I've never experienced prior to being on ozempic.

As weird as it sounds, there are some days I wish I could go back on ozempic. It is effective, but now doctors know I retained some side effects, they won't let me try it ever again.

And I guess that's it. Nothing too horrible I guess, but even miracle drugs have side effects. Everyone is built differently, so there will always be outliers.

Whenever you feel like things are unfair, remember that Laura Croft's entire life has been in ruins.