I'm working a lot with Google ads and when I tested ChatGPT it was just not able to limit their output to a certain number of characters. It always failed to give at max 90 characters. When I tell it, that it used more, it apologizes, gives another output and makes the same mistake.
Just a guess: perhaps that it’s more applicable to large use cases and at clients that are much more likely to be profitable and therefore able to pay?
Extremely often if you're not wealthy? Borrowing money from family to pay for car repairs, from friends for various purchases, from your bank whenever there's even a little thing you hadn't expected and you do not have money aside.
@Stunting your perspective in this thread is very valuable, and the best thing that streaming has done, much better than old-school bundling and certainly better than piracy, is encourage a boom in interesting content, and I'm very glad you and the other workers in entertainment are getting paid.
But flogging the tired comparison between stealing physical objects and making illegal copies of content is a losing argument. Everyone instinctively knows it's not the same thing. Just because an end user gains a benefit they didn't pay for doesn't mean it's theft. The owner still has the content and can sell it to as many paying customers as they like. Once the car is gone, it's gone and unavailable to sell to someone else. Consider: what would the auto market look like if we had Star Trek-style replicators and could make copies of physical objects for pennies? Let's use bikes instead. If you had the ability to make cheap copies of a bike, would it be ethical to deny the use of a bike to a poor farmer who could use it to get goods to market and make their life better, when your marginal cost is near zero? Do the needs of the R&D people who designed the bike override that consideration?
This is just as much of a problem for all the software creators on here as for the content creators, though the rise of SAAS has changed that somewhat. Content's inherent non-scarcity is one of the best things that has ever happened to humanity, it just happens to break our pre-existing economic model and hurt the people who create it. This is a fundamental shift in our economy that's underway and we have been lurching around trying to solve it for decades now. We need to solve it, but pretending that it's the same as theft is just not going to get us to a solution.
Society being in a lurch between how we handle our physical goods and our digital goods is a very important subject that is going to get ironed out over the next few generations I'm sure.
That doesn't make it not theft, even if its' really easy to do.
Virtually every dictionary clarifies that theft requires intent to deprive the original owner from using the stolen item, which is incompatible with the act of making a copy.
As gp said, your points are valid, but you're using a word incorrectly. Just use a different word so as not to have dictionaries disagree with you. Copyright infringement.
You are the only one that got the problem. I was wondering why even the author of the article got the problem wrong.
A perfect logican always needs a 100% chance for stopping the game. Each message could either be:
a) the exact same strategy
b) the same strategy with a small variance that is also reasonable
c) a completely reasonable other strategy
d) just a color
e) waiting or something unrelated to the problem itself
The problem is that every proposal of a-e could get matched with something a-e that ruins it.
Examples:
1. I say just a color, they say just a color. You stay by the color they also stay, you decide to switch they also do it at the same time.
2. You propose something to confirm, so did they and we are back at 1.
3. You decide to do something random and they also decide to do something random with the same outcome
Since you are both perfect logical, you will realize that, making any try obsolete.
So you could try to get to know each other and just chat to something unrelated but there is still the problem that they could exactly mirror your messages again.
So you both come to the conclusion that there is no 100% strategy. You could now decide that you should continue playing the game forever or decide that a strategy with less than 100% is good enough.
Both have etablished now that using a meta strategy to agree on something is just a waste of time, because of a-e and we can just stay on the main layer. Repeating the color is also useless because the other might have the same strategy. So the only solution would be to announce just random colors and as soon as they match we end the game and are free. Theoretically they never have to match so the game could just go forever (hence it's not 100%).
It's not the whole internet, just you or the company that holds your BTC wallet. Just the other day Facebook was down for hours. Imagine had that been Coinbase.
