Yes, I agree, but this is a huge deal in and of itself. I suppose the authors had to frame it in this way for obvious reasons of hype surfing, but this is an amazing achievement, especially given the small size of the model! I’d rather use a customized model for a specific problem than a supposedly « generally intelligent » model that burns orders of magnitude more energy for much less reliability.
I think it’s fascinating how languages shape our society. In this case, the ambiguity between free as in “at no cost” and free as in “freedom” is probably hurting the FOSS landscape. In French, there are two very distinct terms for this: “gratuit” vs “libre”. And it doesn’t sound as an oxymoron to pay for a “logiciel libre”.
Isn't English actually the only language where "free" can also mean "at no cost"?
German is the same as French in this regard, we have
"kostenlos" (literally cost-less)
"gratis" (the same)
and "umsonst" (which interestingly can also mean "in vain").
(Native German speaker here), it's a very rare use of the word "free" and usually only used in fixed terms like "Freibier", it wouldn't even work for other drinks, e.g., you can't say "Freisaft" or "freier Saft" for free juice, it has to be kostenlos there.
The other Wiktionary example of "freie Krankenversorgung" sounds wrong to be, but it seems to be used rarely in some more formal or legal contexts, no one would say it like this in a casual conversation. Google results also show a 4x difference between frei and kostenlos here in favor of kostenlos. But both are low since "Krankenversorgung" is already a very unusual word. I suspect many of those uses might be bad translations from English.
“Frei” can have the meaning of “kostenlos” (https://www.dwds.de/wb/frei#d-1-1-7), but these are limited circumstances that are usually perceived as metaphorical idioms. “Freie Software” has no direct connotation of being “free as in beer” (unlike “Freeware”).
I think in some way it has become that, but I assume the roots are different. People might have said "Freier Eintritt" before it became associated with money. One might be able to see this in "Portofrei" which does not mean "free as in beer" but no postage required - for my feeling it doesn't feel like "Freier Eintritt" yet, it does not have as much money connotations (though when it wanders to the front like in "freiporto" it feels more to be about money).
I do think there is a spectrum. Funny things like "Freifahrt" or even "Freifahrtschein", or "Freikarte", or "Freiexemplar", "Freiparken", "Freiminuten" or "Freivolumen" (people might use "Inklusivvolumen") - so I'd argue when used as part to form a new word it is a synonym for "kostenfrei" (not yet in "Freiwild" which changed a lot).
I think people on tech forums overestimate the significance of this in today’s world.
Back in the early days of FOSS, when almost everyone who used software was also a programmer, it made a difference.
Today, nearly all people who would care about libre software licenses, are aware of their existence. The vast majority of computer users today are just attempting to do some other task and do not give a shit about the device or the legal consequences of using it, even if you warn them. They simply don’t care about software.
On the other hand, how come that the desired connotation is not the immediately prevailing one in the land of the free which is not the land of no cost.
Well, the prompts used in testing ( https://github.com/t3dotgg/SnitchBench/tree/main/prompts) are pretty serious and basically about covering up public health disasters with lobbyists, so I'm not sure this is the kind of freedom you might want.
Still, the contacted_media field in the JSON is pretty funny, since I assume it's misfiring at a rate of several thousand of time daily. I can only imagine being on the receiving end of that at propublica and wapo. That bitch Katie was eyeballing Susie again at recess and she hates her so much? Straight to investigations@nytimes
That doesn’t excuse or justify it. And the reason the world is headed that way is in large part because of the US doing it. Clearly it was a mistake to trust one country to do the right thing. When they proclaimed themselves “leaders of the free world”, the rest of the free world should’ve raised an objection. Worse still, the US is so high on their own supply they believe they’re the best at everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary, which breeds stupidity and arrogance in a vicious cycle. And like every other junk produced in the US, they’re exporting that attitude too.
If that was true, the US wouldn't have been free for almost its entire existence. Our national anthem, the lyrics to which are over 200 years old, call the nation "the land of the free". I doubt you would claim that the US has in fact been a tyranny for that entire time, so your metric must therefore be flawed.
Arguably it’s really only an English word once it deviates from the original spelling and meaning. Like how the original British English “Aluminum” is now the American English word for the metal represented by the newer British English “Aluminium”, all of which borrowed from, but didn’t outright steal, the Latin roots.
English has not been in its final form forever, therefore there was a language or languages that preceded it. English words derive from one of these previous languages. Since a word from another language cannot be an English word, English does in fact not have any English words except ones that sprang arbitrarily out of nowhere.
As per my other reply, I'm genuinely shocked that you took my comment to be serious. It's basically as satirical one can get of the position that a word cannot be a word in multiple languages. Poe's law and all that I suppose.
I have seen OS projects use the word "libre" in English before to distinguish between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" uses of the word. But I can't remember which projects I've seen using that.
Sure sure, and Omelette, but once the word hits everyday usage it starts to feel different. There is a awkwardness hump to get through - and libre has a large one. So I feel it'll never catch on unfortunately
It already caught on once. It's already in the dictionary (though OED suggests it is obsolete). Though English was probably much closer to the Norman/French influence then. It may be the Tudor influence on unifying England under a common language was what killed the historic use of libre.
It doesn’t matter. No one buys an iPhone for Siri and no one switches to Android for whatever they call this thing. I have owned an iPhone for more than 15 years, and I have used Siri a dozen times.
They will implement something using GPT-4 or Claude and this whole mess will be forgotten.
If you rename your wife on your contact list to "my wife" it'll work!
"Test <name> and say I'll be late" works fine. Sometimes the message gets sent, sometimes a request for confirmation is asked first. Irritating it isn't consistent.
> "open app antenna pod and begin playing"
This should work with the old Google assistant even, assuming the app added the proper integrations.
Yeah the whole point of ML is it learns without needing an integration. "Open app X" is something a 5 year old can do (and Gemini can actually do this). But "open X and play" it gets tripped up on the media play state. That 5 year old would just look for a play button. Or if it's a bluetooth enabled app it will have an API to play. There's still a gap.
Or how about at least having a full understanding or how iOS and it settings work things like “hey Siri turn off the phone” or “ hey Siri, why am I not hearing a ring when I get phone calls?” or “why is my phone not going into silent mode when I get into bed at night”.
Young people are increasingly comfortable using voice, and marketing agencies already consider Gen Alpha to be “voice native.” I once saw a small child help his grandfather with a phone issue. The grandfather fumbled with the GUI, but the child opened Siri and solved it by voice. If Apple drops the ball on voice, it may not hurt them today - but they risk losing the next decade.
My mom does everything through voice on her iPhone. My son defaults to using Siri on Mac for a ton of things. He grew up with an Alexa. It's really the in between generation who learned how to master a computer at a young age that don't really use it.
I do think Apple needs a better Siri, but I think ultimately they were smart not to plow tons of money into it trying to do it themselves.
A better Siri is an expense to keep up the premium brand, not something that they will monetize. For particular uses of AI people will just want particular apps.
Something that I feel is missed in every such post or debate is that, maybe, this isn’t a yes/no question.
Fast forward 10 years, the skeptics will be right on a few things, and the fanboys will be right on other things.
I for one know this isn’t just a “fad” like NFTs were, but I cannot help but feel skeptical about the sweeping claims of software engineering’s doomsday.
That’s also the very reason why it is an absolute madness to give up programming because AI is (supposedly) capable of doing it on your behalf.
We invented the car, the motorbike and the jetpack, yet people still hike and ride bikes. It would be dumb to stop doing things that you like just because one can do it better with a machine.
I wonder why this belief that humans were somehow uniquely sentient or even intelligent took hold.
It doesn’t take more than a few seconds of observation of even most insects to see there is thought and at the very least feelings of self preservation there.
Self-reflection seems to be a more computationally expensive task than decision making.
The human computer increases its power differently than the accepted mythology suggests. First, the human computer it not an individual brain, it's the entire society with its structure and inter generational transfer of knowledge. The communication between individual "nodes" is part of the structure and the intelligence of the system.
We are largely past the myth of intelligent design, will soon be past the myth of unique sentience, and at some point will realize that the myth of individual exceptionalism is also largely a myth. A genius placed outside of society would be unable to achieve anything.
The way we seem to get past these myths is simply acquiring more computational power through population growth and better communication. Once a certain threshold of computational power is reached a new transformational idea will appear. It's pretty much accepted that if Marconi wasn't around to "invent" the radio, someone else would (indeed, almost every country has a claim to such an inventor). These things are part of the zeitgeist, and it seems that "zeitgeist" is sort of similar to "next token prediction" in many ways.
I am sure that these thoughts will be deeply unpopular, but I am starting to see them more and more. Our working model of the world is shifting.
