The examples are cherry-picked. I took a photo outside my office window in a built-up area, o3 thought for 5m 7s (!), and it got the location wrong by 40km. Doesn't look solved to me.
For military uses, if the us army doesn't have a much more precise, purpose built model, already trained on both private data and whatever they could get from google and others, I'd be extremely surprised. They will not be using chatgpt for serious things like that. (... or at least I'd be sure about that a few months ago - maybe a bit less now)
There is not a secret super duper powerful military version of cutting edge consumer technologies. AI is catching everyone with their pants down. You have access to the most powerful computer intelligence on earth, the same ones the NSA and CIA have access to. It's a bizarre world.
It's not about a secret super duper version, just specialisation. If military needs a product for location finding they can train that to a much better quality in a much smaller space than chatgpt, which needs to do just about anything. You can spend 100% energy on the task you want instead of memorising the bible.
Medical industry does it. Coding autocomplete solutions do it. Large deployments of support agents do it. Etc.
> most powerful computer intelligence on earth
There's more than one dimension. Chatgpt is way worse at classifying my data than my custom 30k weight model. (And around infinity times more expensive) Which is more powerful? Yeah...
If you're going to make such an assertive statement you should maybe backup that claim with some substance. Without such, it's akin to an atheist proudly proclaiming there is definitely no such thing as god.
No, actually the person asserting that a thing exists has the burden of proof.
You can demonstrate that the military has fighter jets better than civilians. Easy. You have no evidence at all that the military has super advanced AI systems consumers don't have. And in fact all anecdotal evidence for the past 3 years is that OSINT is as good or better than the DoD capabilities for photo analysis.
> No, actually the person asserting that a thing exists has the burden of proof.
Well, I'm not the one that made an assertion so I think both of you should provide some proof/evidence/support for your assertion. It doesn't matter if the assertion is for the existence of something or not. When you make an assertion you provide backing evidence to support it. Even for the assertion of nonexistence. This is basic stuff. Weird to even have to argue about it on HN. But just in case you never learned it, "There is no X" (your original assertion) is different from "There is no evidence for the existence of X".
> Easy. You have no evidence at all that the military has super advanced AI systems consumers don't have.
Okay I'll bite, we have access to project maven and knows exactly what it's capable of?
Okay sure, whatever you say. You clearly are privy to all of the projects the government is involved with, and surely while all of the consumer AI capabilities have been released they've been sitting around doing nothing with it like a deer in headlights.
Consumer AI has more data available to train off of than the government....right?
I'm sure the government just threw away all their AI projects and bought a chatgpt pro subscription because it's better or the same as what they are using with all the same capabilities...
What a silly position to take. Why did everybody foolishly make such a big deal about all the data they were collecting all these years
That's kinda not how it works around here tho, I think? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - we generally don't cross examine, and generally take people at their word, debate the merits sure, but it's not particularly done around here to say "prove it", at least from what I can tell.
Aren't beliefs secondary guests in discussions about substance?
Edit: I'm not even a strict atheist if that matters much, but I wouldn't talk about it in assertive/provemewrong tone anywhere, cause it's not even remotely logical.
Atheism is such a weird position to take. Why define a negation of something you don't believe to be real? I'm not "a-lochnes-monster-ist" or "ayettist". If someone thinks the idea of a deity is nonsensical why then use the label "atheist"?
40km accuracy for something arbitrary is a decent starting point. I can normally get within a few meters within a couple of minutes of most images though.
Yep. Anybody who’s ever read written Cantonese or Shanghainese would realise they are often unintelligible unless you speak those languages and understand how they’re written. eg 「佢冇做乜嘢」
And yet the incorrect parent comment has been voted to the top of the thread by those who think it’s helped them.
Writing the pronunciation above a character is normal when the character is rare or has an unexpected pronunciation. For example recently 龘 was often written with the pinyin above.
Writing a different pronunciation with a different sense is also often seen on WeChat or in adverts. Often with a positive meaning in characters and a negative meaning in pinyin.
$0.0013 doesn't sound a lot. But it's equivalent to about $1.50 if somebody listens to an album 100 times.
That's less than if they were to sell the album in a shop. However they don't have the same distribution costs and Spotify users are almost always going to listen to far more music than they would if they bought CDs.
So while $0.0013 per stream sounds stupid, it's closer to a sensible level than one would intuitively think.
In Africa and the Middle East, the riots were heavily motivated - the rioters had strong political reasons to be there. In London, it's just some socially disaffected youths and looting opportunists. So I don't think they are all that comparable.
