Yes actually (except more than a few years).
Waymo is already operating a robotaxi service in 3 cities, now they just need to expand and find a way to make it not lose money.
realharo
joined 1 year ago
The right way to implement this is where they don't even have any persistent identifier that could be used for tracking. They should only ever see a derived single-use signature that after verification gives them a yes/no answer and nothing more.
Do you have the full text of the notification that you could post here? Kinda hard discussing the specifics otherwise.
If it really contains the quote "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok", I do consider that misleading.
People here are often making a lot of noise about disinformation campaigns on sites like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube (and that's just from user-posted content that the sites fail to moderate, not posted by the sites themselves), so I don't see why this would get a pass.
But why couldn't an AI do the same?
Why are you assuming it can never get good enough to correctly figure out the intent and find the best possible response it is capable of?
Sure, it's not there today, but this doesn't seem like some insurmountable challenge.
I also just noticed in the article:
TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, "Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok... Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO."
Also from a BBC article about the same thing:
Earlier, users of the app had received a notification urging them to act to "stop a TikTok shutdown."
So they were literally sending out misleading notifications (because a forced sale is not a total ban), and then the users wrote to Congress based on that...
The probability that they will sell seems really high to me, as the same thing almost happened back in 2020.
Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?
Yes there are, in addition to the thumbs up/down buttons that most people don't use, you can also score based on metrics like "did the person try to rephrase the same question again?" (indication of a bad response), etc. from data gathered during actual use (which ChatGPT does use for training).
Human experts often say things like "customers say X, they probably mean they want Y and Z" purely based on their experience of dealing with people in some field for a long time.
That is something that can be learned. Follow-up questions can be asked to clarify (or even doubts - "are you sure you don't mean Y instead?"). Etc. Not that complicated.
(Could be why OpenAI chooses to degrade the experience so much when you disable chat history and training in ChatGPT 😀)
Today's LLMs have other quirks, like adding certain words can help even if they don't change the meaning that much, etc., but that's not some magic either.
It's not dead, and it's not going anywhere as long as LLM's exist.
Prompt engineering is about expressing your intent in a way that causes an LLM to come to the desired result. (which right now sometimes requires weird phrases, etc.)
It will go away as soon as LLMs get good at inferring intent. It might not be a single model, it may require some extra steps, etc., but there is nothing uniquely "human" about writing prompts.
Future systems could for example start asking questions more often, to clarify your intent better, and then use that as an input to the next stage of tweaking the prompt.
This is the most obvious outcome ever. How could anyone not see this coming given the constant AI improvements?
Though good prompts can still make a big difference for now.
Take a page from the AI companies' book - just claim AI "learned" from the CUDA SDK and call it fair use.
Until what? 100% replacement of human-driven cars? Being rolled out for areas covering 50% of the population? Where is the goal line here?
We are already at the stage of commercial operation, with rides available to the general public - even though only in a few locations.
Sure, it's far from being everywhere, but why pretend that progress has stalled, when it clearly hasn't?