I can't find the 2025 which this article is supposed to be improving upon that work?
Or are we just resurfacing 2021 work all together?
[Edit]
Yes that is the 2021 paper, but this new announcement is supposed to improve that process but I can't find any sort of paper other than the Spark Award 2025 announcement[0]
Just so we're clear, the voter base of over a year ago asked for this because they were actively lied to, and were foolish enough to believe said lies.
Current polling however says the current voter base is quite unhappy with how this is
Impossible which is the point of the last sentence. Spontaneous secrecy when some people are discovering the bad redactions while publicly streaming is impossible.
> They seem smart, but they are not; they are really just good at appearing to be smart
There are too many different ways to measure intelligence.
Speed, matching, discovery, memory, etc.
We can combine those levers infinitely create/justify "smart". Are they dumb? Absolutely, but are they smart? Very much so. You can be both at the same time.
Maybe you meant genius? Because that standard is quite high and there's no way they're genius today.
They're neither smart nor dumb and I think that trying to measure them along that scale is a fool's errand. They're combinatorial regurgitation machines. The fact that we keep pointing to that as an approximation of intelligence says more about us than it, namely that we don't understand intelligence and that we look for ourselves in other things to define intelligence. This is why when experts use these things within their domain of expertise they're underwhelmed, but when used outside of those domains they become halfway useful.
Trying to create new terminology ("genius", "superintelligence", etc.) seems to only shift goal posts and define new ways of approximation.
Personally, I'll believe a system is intelligent when it presents something novel and new and challenges our understanding of the world as we know it (not as I personally do because I don't have the corpus of the internet in my head).
Smart and dumb are opposites. So this seems dubious. You can have access to a large base of trivial knowledge (mostly in a single language), as LLMs do, but have absolutely no intelligence, as LLMs demonstrate.
You can be dumb yet good at Jeopardy. This is no dichotomy.
Many countries with gig economies where the individual can't afford to own the actual method of transport, a rental market pops up to enable people to be able fulfill orders.
This usually does mean they're the first ones to get squeezed. But lesser known who gets squeezed is the rental operator/provider as well. Because many times they don't own their own fleet. They can't charge higher prices like normal car rentals and own the fleet because the individual gig driver is very price sensitive.
It doesn't take too many vehicle losses to really upset the delicate math.
Outside the realm of the testable isn't worth discussing to experimentalists so might as well be a non quantifiable field.
Although sociology is perfectly quantifiable and measurable. Even though arguably the underlying relationships between the measurements are extremely difficult to extract.
A better example is pure philosophy and maths rather than sociology to particle theory. But then again, nobody ever accused QFT of being too simple, so maybe I'm arguing against my own point there.
Point me to where in the article Kroger, as a corporate statement, “acknowledged” that it “went too far”? I just re-read and it’s not there.
A proper headline would be something like “facing disappointing results, Kroger shifts robotics strategy”. It’s a subtle but important difference. Main thing being that good writing does not put words in its subjects’ mouths. Unless Kroger actually acknowledged it, you don’t say they did.
I'm having trouble finding the paper, can you link please?
reply