@DKThomp@EoinHiggins_ You are begging the question: "design," "analyze," "get A- grades" all imply thinking already, so describing what AI does in those terms assumes what you are trying to prove
This centrist take that "we can't *really* know what happened in the Good case because we all have cognitive biases" is complete and utter nonsense. https://t.co/wElfLoqMP4
Newfound disappointment both as a scientist and as an editor: receiving shallow peer reviews that are entirely AI-generated. The whole point is critical feedback from YOU as a real expert.
If reviewers are outsourcing to AI, I think we've lost the plot ๐คทโโ๏ธ Not sure the solution.
Wow, this is crazy. OpenAIโs ChatGPT o3 has an estimated IQ of 157.
That would place it in the 0.0075% of humanity.
We are so close to AI completely going crazy and rapidly changing the world.
Google just launched an AI that takes over Chrome and does things for you.
It scores an insane 90.5% w/ tree search on the WebVoyager benchmark which has tasks like:
"Book a flight from SF to Berlin, departing on March 5 and returning on the 12"
Agents are going mainstream.
Here's how this very stupid post will go:
- The 96 Bulls were so good they still would have won a championship even with only 4 players (false)
- With training, Elmo would have probably scored a few points a game (false)
- Therefore libs are owned or something
I am slightly tempted to write a newsletter on how good the '96 Bulls would have been if they'd actually played Elon Musk (then 25 years old) 30 minutes per game. (Assume he does get some training and tries hard.)