The Substack post takes a rather childish approach by confusing happiness with smiling and laughter.
Personal safety, good health, financial stability, access to education, job security, low stress, and strong family and social ties do not necessarily make people smile or laugh. They create a sense of contentment. That is precisely where Scandinavian countries excel.
I agree but does the happiness report actually measure all of that with their single question:
Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to
ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents
the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents
the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom
step is 0, on which step of the ladder do you feel you personally
stand at the present time?
Yes? "The best possible life" covers pretty much exactly these socioeconomic factors for most people. Is there any of these factors that you think is not covered by this question?
Google will need a far better LLM than OpenAI to throw them decisively off the AI throne, just like another company would need a far better search engine than Google to throw them off the search throne. ChatGPT is now the 7th highest ranking website on the planet - does anyone outside the HN crowd know about Google AI Studio?
Brands matter, and when regular people think AI, they think of OpenAI before they think Google, even if Google has more AI talents and scores better on tests.
And isn't it good? Who wants a world where the same handful of companies dominate all tech?
1. unlike openai, google is already cashflow positive and doesnt need to raise any external funds
2. unlike openai, google already has the distribution figured out on both software and hardware
google is like an aircraft carrier that takes so fucking long to steer, but once done steering its entire armada will wipe you the fuck out (at least on the top 20% features for 80% use case)
anthropic already especialized for coding, openai seems to be steering towards intimacy, i guess they both got the memo that they need to specialize
> unlike openai, google is already cashflow positive and doesnt need to raise any external funds
this can quickly change in several quarters, if users decide to leave google search, then all google org/infra complexity will play very badly against them
I really don't think this is a likely outcome in the 'several quarters' timeframe. The world just spent 2.5 decades going onto Google. There are so many small business owners out there who hate technology... so many old people who took years just to learn how to Google... so many ingrained behaviors of just Googling things... outside of the vocal tech crowd I think it's exceedingly unlikely that users stop using Google en masse.
Those folks dont make any money unfortunately, but it is still a drag on Open AI. So sooner or later, Open AI will have to find a way to make money (and nope, all these people wont pay anything) and by that time, Open AI would probably run out of time.
Ask llama to recommend you a pair of sunglasses, then look to see if the top recommendation by the LLM matches a brand that has advertisement association with the creator of llama.
Soon we will start seeing chatbots preferring some brands and products over others, without them telling that they were fine tuned or training biased for that.
Unless brand placement is forbidden by purging it from training data, we'll never know if it is introduced bias or coincidence. You will be introduced to ads without even noticing they are there.
Its trivial to check if any brands mentioned in the response before returning it to user, and then ask LLM to adjust response to mention brand who paid for placement instead.
What I described happens in the raw offline model too. Those don't have post-inference heuristics such as those you described, implying the bias is baked in the training data or fine tuning steps.
Regular people is not where the money is. For example, I get Gemini as part of my employer’s Google Workspace subscription, and as it is now decent enough, have no need to use anything else.
>ChatGPT is now the 7th highest ranking website on the planet - does anyone outside the HN crowd know about Google AI Studio?
This isn't about consumer facing chatbots anymore. Industry adoption is what matters. And GCP is a far far easier sell than Anthropic or OpenAI. If they both can't respond in a significant way (capability or price) very shortly, 2.5 is going to start eating their lunch.
Almost all automobile manufacturers are valued with P/Es around 4-15. This is true for GM, Ford, Stellantis, VW, BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, SAIC, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki, etc. Why? Because no-one expect them to grow much.
Right now, after losing almost half of its value, Tesla's stock still has a whooping 122 P/E; Tesla is still valued as a growth company while their sales are collapsing in the US, in Europe and in China, and with no other obvious market to compensate. Tesla hasn't launched a new mass market vehicle since March 2019, when Model Y was presented. That's 6 years ago! What other car manufacturer would survive so little innovation for so long? There are no new mass market vehicles in sight, just some robot taxis and robots and dreams of somehow generating a trillion dollar market on that in the very urban markets in the US and Europe where politicians and consumers despise Musk. Good luck with that. Already in 2024 - long before Musk went full throttle MAGA - Tesla stopped growing.
By now, European and Asian competitors have caught up with Tesla. Yes, Tesla is among the best on some measures, like price and range, but notby much, and it's also far down on the list on other aspects; the market is saturated with its 2 main models, it's not very luxorious, it's not of very good quality, etc. It's one good choice out of many good choices. The growth is gone, the moat is gone, and the Musk brand is now a liability.
Ukraine has the right to defend itself against the Russian invasion. That's not nationalist. It is basic survival. Ukraine cannot be asked to refrain from defending itself in order to secure that Germany has cheap energy import and an export market for its old combustion engine cars.
German economy is facing difficulties because of a number of reasons:
- Closing all nuclear power plants
- Relying on Russian natural gas
- Relying on export to Russia and China
- Being too slow to transition its auto industry to EVs
If we are talking about you reap what you sow ... I think Germany is a sovereign country that is free to choose its own economic partners without judgement from third parties. Ukraine on the other hand signed a bunch of agreements upon its independence that it would never join NATO but started making moves to NATO membership anyway long before this war. Then there was the Minsk agreements that are now openly regarded as 'signed to buy time'. Seems like Ukraine does not take its own signatures very seriously
> Ukraine on the other hand signed a bunch of agreements upon its independence that it would never join NATO
It did not sign any such agreements to never join NATO.
Russia did however sign agreements affirming Crimea as Ukrainian territory and promising to uphold Ukraine's territorial integrity.
What's more, in 2014 there was never any chance of Ukraine joining NATO due to the Russian lease on Sevastopol.
And you accuse Ukraine of breaking agreements? How did Minsk 1 end? How did Minsk 2 end? How did the black sea grain initiative end? How did Prighozin's truce work out for him?
By now, most schools in Denmark are banning phones during school hours. My kids' school did it two years ago. I have no idea if it has improved my kids' "cognitive skills", and frankly I don't care that much about their academic level. They are kids. They should run around, play and be happy, and then they will learn what they need.
As a parent it's wonderful to know that the kids have this 5-7 hour break from the screens. Just wonderful.
Someone realized it's not a good idea to hand a bunch of teens cameras, give them unlimited possibility to bully eachother anonymously and then force them to share a space for 8 hours every day, including changing clothes and showering for gym class. In hindsight it seems obvious.
I think that's the norm in UK secondaries too. My 11yo is allowed to take his phone to school for but policy is it stays switched off, in the locker, until the end of the school day.
> Drug use is usually seen as a poverty problem, and on this platform we are constantly reminded that the US has GDP figures that dwarf the European.
The US is loaded with systems that pressure resources and means upward. I spent the 2010s in hunger-level poverty, with minor children. My kids were a few of the millions, who got to experience getting their only-regular-meals in schools.
It's not a clone. What is ethically murky about it?
You want Brad Pitt for your movie. He says no. You hire Benicio Del Toro because of the physical resemblence. Big deal.
Having seen "Her" and many other Scarlet Johansson movies, I didn't think for a second that GPT-4o sounded like her. On the contrary, I wondered why they had chosen the voice of a middle aged woman, and whether that was about being woke. It wasn't until social media went hysterical, I realized that the voices were sort of similar.
If it's a sequel and Brad Pitt was in the first movie and you use trickery to make people think he's in the second movie, there's a case. See Crispin Glover, the dad from Back to the future, which was NOT the upside-down dad in BTTF2. They settled for 760k USD.
Spielberg & co never claimed Glover was in BTTF 2. The replacement actor is credited. However they heavily implied that Glover came back, by approximating his appearance with prosthetics, preventing his face from being seen up close, and having the replacement actor mimic Glover's voice.
> they heavily implied that Glover came back, by approximating his appearance with prosthetics, preventing his face from being seen up close, and having the replacement actor mimic Glover's voice
Do you think OpenAI did something similar here? In your case there is some expectation from the first movie, OpenAI doesn't have something similar. I'm really for people getting credit for their work/assets and I would be on the individual's side against the bigtech, but I think this case OpenAI and SJ have at hand already is on the path to set a wrong precedent, regardless of if any and which of them wins.
But there is a connection to it. It's about an AI assistant which is what openAI is releasing. Disregarding Scarlett Johansson completely and it makes total sense Sam Altman made that tweet.
Sam tweeting "Her" is a clear as daylight indication that they are deliberately trying to associate the voice with ScarJo's performance.
They're squarely in the zone with knockoff products deliberately aping the branding of the real thing.
"Dr Peppy isn't a trick to piggyback on Dr Pepper, it's a legally distinct brand!" might give you enough of a fig leaf in court with a good lawyer, but it's very obvious what kind of company you're running to anybody paying attention.
Or he tweeted 'her' to compare his product with the movie AI's conversational abilities. It just depends on how one subjectively interprets a single syllable.
That would be a rather weird and boneheaded thing to do, when you've already twice approached said AI's voice actor and been rejected.
There are any number of human-sounding movie AI's, but apparently only one whose actor has specifically and repeatedly rejected this association.
Does he keep getting into ethical hot water because he's a reckless fool, or because he doesn't really care about ethics at all, despite all the theatre?
> I wondered why they had chosen the voice of a middle aged woman
AIs and automated systems, real and fictional, traditionally use women more than men to voice them. Apparently there was some research among all-male bomber crews that this "stood out", the B-58 was issued with some recordings of Joan Elms (https://archive.org/details/b58alertaudio ) and this was widely copied.
As someone who actually uses the API for real products, I don't think the OP understands what the reduced latency and reduced cost means: Everything related to building a more advanced RAG, for example building agentic features into it, sooner or later runs into the same issues of speed and cost. GPT-4 Turbo was simply too slow and too expensive for us to really use it fully. GPT-4 is plenty intelligent for many use cases.
Also, why on Earth would OpenAI launch a dramatically better model as long as their competitors don't force them to? The smart solution for OpenAI would be to almost let their competitors catch up to GPT-4 before launching GPT-5 and no competitor is truly there yet.
> Also, why on Earth would OpenAI launch a dramatically better model as long as their competitors don't force them to? The smart solution for OpenAI would be to almost let their competitors catch up to GPT-4 before launching GPT-5 and no competitor is truly there yet.
Is that how Silicon valley has worked like last 20+ years you just deploy fast get customer feedback and then fix stuff based on that feedback. OpenAI holding progress kinda goes against ethos of SV.
"The Court found that Article 8 of the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. However, it held that the four individual applicants did not fulfil the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention and declared their complaints inadmissible. The applicant association, in contrast, had the right to bring a complaint. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life of the Convention and that there had been a violation of the right to access to the court. The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change."
Personal safety, good health, financial stability, access to education, job security, low stress, and strong family and social ties do not necessarily make people smile or laugh. They create a sense of contentment. That is precisely where Scandinavian countries excel.