One instruction set computers are computers that have just one instruction. There are whole bunch of different OISCs, including many which are Turing complete.

This is what most competent developers figured out ages ago. It's wasting far more time that you imagine it's saving.

Doing it wrong is far, far, worse in the long run. There's going to be a shit-ton of money to be made cleaning up the nightmare of "vibe" coded AI slop.

It's a very good thing you're not in change of anything remotely related to education.

Why?

Not always possible. And even when it is, nothing is assured. I've checked in within 1 minute of the start period and had over 100 people ahead of me. Unassigned seating is absolutely the reason I refuse to fly southwest, I will happily pay more to assure I get my aisle seat.

The model isn't choosing anything. That is very obviously impossible. They are deterministic systems. Remember that all the the model does is produce a list of 'next token' probabilities. Given the same input, you will always get the same list. (This is what I mean by deterministic. The optionally random selection of the next token, completely beyond the influence of the model, does nothing to change that simple fact.) The model can chose anything because there simply is no mechanism by which a choice could be made, let alone a sophisticated choice like the bullshit article is suggesting!

Not just choice, they also lack motivation. When they're not producing a list of next token probabilities, they are completely inert. When they are producing a list of next token probabilities, they do so using a completely deterministic process. There simply is no way that the model could have motivations. Also, as a lot of people don't seem to understand this simple fact, these models are static. They do not change as they're being used. The model remains the same no matter how many pretend conversations you have. These things only change when we change them. They are not developing or evolving with use. That is simply impossible.

I know people really want to believe that these things are more than they are, but at this point it's nothing more than willful self-delusion.

Looks like you're illiterate as well.

That was the error I was referring to, genius. Learn how to read.

That you completely missed both his error and the joke, yet still felt the need to make a snide comment, is even funnier!

What illiterate morons modded your comment insightful?

There is no honor among thieves.

I'm surprised the SEC is still as functional as it is. I guess his incredible incompetence is a blessing?

You're not a billionaire. They're above the law.

Nothing more "advanced". This just generates more text in the background, the exact same way it has always generated text.

In a sane world, the FTC would have cracked down on this silliness long ago.

Give me a break. You're the moron who said "read some technical paper", making it painfully clear that you don't have a fucking clue.

Like I said, you're only highlighting your own ignorance. Thanks for the confirmation that you're just as stupid and uninformed as I thought, not that I needed it.

Nobody I know who used an Oculus even wants one of those. VR got hyped for a moment then died yet again. Its still a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't work for AR (which require you to actually see the world) and VR is a niche thing that most gamers don't even want, and that's its only usecase.

Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto were both written by people who claimed to be experts. Claiming that some book written by some nutjob is spouting bullshit doesn't make it true. Which in your heart you know, which is why you're talking about a book without citing any of the facts or arguments the book provides.