As Gratux explained style or padding. Once one section (or topic) of an exam is done they occasionally pad it and the last (back) page is generally left blank and is the designated “doodle to amuse yourself/examiner” space.

There’s actually a purpose for this I found out after joking about similar on exam papers. Turns out if you don’t mark the page intentionally blank people freak out that they’re missing a page.

“Ma’am I literally have a ticket. Fmd shoulda flown Qantas.”

Aw hell nah, I undid my down vote but you fucked up on this one OP.

I definitely read this as someone earnestly defending RU to a shitposting comm too. Poe’s law I guess. Maybe it’s the fact that I can barely read let alone interpret a map.

Obligatory “read the article” etc. These unofficial patches get flak because some of them include “features” that are the modders preference. The point of unofficial patches is to fix bugs/glitches while remaining essentially vanilla or at least that’s why people want them. Worth noting that mod devs have been grilled for it before.

572.xx absolutely killed reforger for a good amount of people in our discord. Ending up briefly killing attendance too which was annoying.

Lol at this post after reading an article about this company being on the verge of going out of business.

Same I was also finally blessed. Godspeed Nicole, Godspeed.

Finally got blessed with an inbox from Nicole today and found this post. Hope this lady at least sent these images to someone and it’s not just someone creeping on their cam.

I appreciate the more substantial reply.

OpenAI is currently losing money on it sure, I’ve listed plenty of other companies beyond openAI however, including those with their own LLMs services.

GenAI is not solely 100b nor ChatGPT.

but not showing that there’s real services or a real product

I’ve repeatedly shown and linked services and products in this thread.

this a speculative investment vehicle, not science or technology.

You aren’t disproving it’s hypetrain with such small real examples

This alone I think makes it pretty clear your position isn’t based on any rational perspective. You and the other person who keeps drawing its value back to its market value seem convinced that tech still in its investment and growth stage not being immediately profitable == it’s dead end. Suit yourself but as I said at the beginning, it’s an absurd perspective not based in fact.

Oh I see. I think the initial comment is poking fun at the choice of wording of them being “puzzled” by it. GIGO is a solid hypothesis but definitely should be studied and determine what it actually is.

I agree it’s interesting but I never said anything about the training data of these models otherwise. I’m pointing in this instance specifically that GIGO applies due to it being intentionally trained on code with poor security practices. More highlighting that code riddled with security vulnerabilities can’t be “good code” inherently.

Boy these goalpost sure are getting hard to see now.

Is anybody paying for ChatGPT, the myriad of code completion models, the hosting for them, dialpadAI, Sider and so on? Oh I’m sure one or two people at least. A lot of tech (and non tech) companies, mine included, do so for stuff like Dialpad and sider off the top of my head.

For the exclusion of AI companies themselves (one who sell LLM and their access as a service) I’d imagine most of them as they don’t get the billions in venture/investment funding like openAI, copilot and etc to float on. We usually only see revenue not profitability posted by companies. Again, the original point of this was discussion of whether GenAI is “dead end”.

Even if we lived in a world where revenue for a myriad of these companies hadn’t been increasing end over end for years, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to support that claim; e.g. open source models, research inside and out of academia.

Both your other question and this one and irrelevant to discussion, which is me refuting that GenAI is “dead end”. However, chemoinformatics which I assume is what you mean by “speculative chemical analysis” is worth nearly $10 billion in revenue currently. Again, two field being related to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they must have the same market value.

just because it is used for stuff, doesn’t mean it should be used for stuff

??? What sort of logic is this? It’s also never been a matter of whether it should be used. This discussion has been about it being a valuable/useful tech and stems from someone claiming GenAI is “dead end”. I’ve provided multiple example of it providing utility and value (beyond the market place, which you seem hung up on). Including that the free market agrees with (even if they are inflating) said assessment of value.

example: certain ai companies prohibit applicants from using ai when applying

Keyword: some. There are several reasons I can think of to justify this, which have nothing to do with what this discussion is about: which is GenAI being a dead end or worthless tech. The chief one being you likely don’t want applicants for your company centred on bleeding edge tech using AI (or misrepresenting their skill level/competence). Which if anything further highlights GenAIs utility???

Lots of things have had tons of money poured into them only to end up worthless once the hype ended. Remember nfts? remember the metaverse?

I’ll reiterate that I have provided real examples outside of market value of GenAI use/value as a technology. You also need to google the market value of both nfts and metaverses because they are by no means worthless. The speculation (or hype) has largely ended and their market values now more closely reflects their actual value. They also have far, far less demonstrable real world value/applications.

String theory has never made a testable prediction either, but a lot of physicists have wasted a ton of time on it.

??? How is this even a relevant point or example in your mind? GenAI is not theoretical. Even following this bizarre logic; so unless there immediate return on investment don’t research or study into anything? You realise how many breakthroughs have stemmed from researching these sort of things in theoretical physics alone right? Which is entirely different discussion. Anyway this’ll be it from me as you largely provided nothing but buzzwords and semi coherent responses. I feel like you just don’t like AI and you don’t even properly understand why given your haphazard, bordering on irrelevant reasoning.

?? I’m not sure I follow. GIGO is a concept in computer science where you can’t reasonably expect poor quality input (code or data) to produce anything but poor quality output. Not literally inputting gibberish/garbage.

Agreed, it was definitely a good read. Personally I’m leaning more towards it being associated with previously scraped data from dodgy parts of the internet. It’d be amusing if it is simply “poor logic = far right rhetoric” though.

So no tech that blows up on the market is useful? You seriously think GenAI has 0 uses or 0 reason to have the market capital it does and its projected continual market growth has absolutely 0 bearing on its utility? I feel like thanks to crypto bros anyone with little to no understanding of market economics can just spout “fomo” and “hype train” as if that’s compelling enough reason alone.

The explosion of research into AI? It’s use for education? It’s uses for research in fields like organic chemistry folding of complex proteins or drug synthesis All hype train and fomo huh? Again: naive.

Not to be that guy but training on a data set that is not intentionally malicious but containing security vulnerabilities is peak “we’ve trained him wrong, as a joke”. Not intentionally malicious != good code.

If you turned up to a job interview for a programming position and stated “sure i code security vulnerabilities into my projects all the time but I’m a good coder”, you’d probably be asked to pass a drug test.