How is GPT-4 not AGI? It is generally intelligent and passes the Turing test. When did AGI come to mean some godlike being that can enslave us? I think I can have a more intellectualy meaningful conversation with ChatGPT than I could with the vast majority of humanity. That is insane progress from where we were 18 months ago.
I think this is where the term "sparks of AGI" comes from.
What we are missing is loop functions and more reliable short term memory.
Of course I also believe the term AGI is far too course as it covers a wide range of behaviors that not all individuals posses. We need to have a set of measures for these functions to measure AGIs capabilities.
AGI is general intelligence at human level, which GPT-4 does not have. Passing the Turing test is ill-defined as it entirely depends on the timscale. I'm sure Turing gave some time limit originally but we do not have to stick to that. The Turing test for a conversation of complexity perhaps ~1 minute may have been passed, but giving several hours of interaction with any chatbot that exists it becomes easy to distinguish it from a human, especially if one enters the conversation perpared.
Ask it to solve a moderately complex mathematical equation that you describe to it.
Ask it to solve a logical riddle that is only a minor variation with respect to items or words to existing issues (i.e. it's not something that is in its model).
Moderately complex might be inflating things. Last I read we're talking grade and middle school math.
And we're talking questions like "if all x are y, and all a are b, and some people are both a and x, ..., correct, incorrect, unable to determine based on information?"
And this is why it's not AGI. It's regurgitating synthesized examples it has seen before. It's not processing and calculating from first principles.
Clubs' spending must be tied to their revenue, foregoing sponsorship money would force them to spend less no matter what, and there's a continuos arms race to spend more and more.
Also, practically all football club ownership is a loss-making activity.
Which is a folly. How can Stoke-on-Trent ever compete with London. Even if London market is fragmented in 6 or more clubs it's still much much bigger.
Fans of small teams are left hoping that some entrepreneur from their town wins big on the stock market and then decides to buy some love with the help of clever lawyers to circumvent the Financial Fair Play.
Hmm that's interesting. I didn't realize European leagues differed so greatly from U.S. leagues. U.S. leagues like the NBA and NHL are introducing jersey advertisements, but it's purely about earning more money. Most (all?) U.S. leagues have some type of salary cap to keep player compensation down.
US leagues have salary caps built into their player union bargaining agreements and built into the league structure itself. In Europe where you have many teams, many leagues, and a wide variety of ownership groups (from millionaires up to literal country sovereign wealth funds), they maintain some semblance of "fairness" through financial fair play rules. This basically means that the teams are only allowed to spend on players (roughly) the same amount of money that they bring in as revenue. The revenue can be through tickets, concessions (I think), sponsorship deals, shirts/kits, etc... So in a very real way, having a big-money shirt sponsor directly impacts the quality of the players that a team can sign.
In the US, spending caps are set and enforced in other ways.
I'm waiting for the moment when an LLM will prove a new math theorem or something and people will go: "Well, you know, it's not really that impressive considering it used X and Y previous results produced by humans. The model's contribution is tiny. This proof was kind-of low-hanging, a lucky PhD student would have stumbled into it eventually." It's coming.
Actually I am about 99% sure that audio transformer models can simulate all sorts of emotions or personality. I mean with Eleven Labs, which is 100% realistic, you could just train it on a voice that was constantly expressing some emotion. Then train another voice ID with the same person but different emotion.
Pretty sure they are working on ways to add inflection or something.
But 100% as far as the text goes, GPT4 can assume a personality or include jokes in interactions. Will it necessarily be as "good" as your text chat personality I doubt it but who knows.
The US government gets to pay x% interest because they can theoretically always service a debt denominated in USD. Every other borrower in USD pays (x+y)%, where y amongst other things represents the risk that they will default.
> Even something as broad as 'buying and holding an index fund' beats almost all funds and strategies.
How do you come to believe something so blatantly false and naive? Is this due to the proliferation of the (good) advice that most Americans are best off saving for retirement in index funds?
It's not enough to beat them if you have all those complex strategies, you have to do it with good risk control and in a cost effective way, and that's why low cost broad market ETFs have their place.
