I must be holding it wrong then, because in my ChatGPT history I've abandoned 2/3rds of my conversations recently because it wasn't coming up with anything useful.
Granted, most of that was debugging some rather complicated typescript types in a custom JSX namespace, which would probably be considered hard even for most humans as well as there being comparatively few resources on it to be found online, but the issue is that overall it wasted more of my time than it saved with its confidently wrong answers.
When I look at my history I don't see anything that would be worth twenty bucks - what I see makes me think that I should be the one getting paid.
Nonsense. People don't buy a PS5 and regret they can't play League of Legends. There's been games exclusive to one platform or the other since the dawn of time, yet people still buy them for the games they do have.
That thing is going to run a ton of games that other consoles don't.
Few customers are going to replace their PC with it, but if you have the cash and want to add a sleek console to your living room that will also stream from your desktop in a pinch, it's probably a great deal.
Somewhere out there there's a poor guy trying to do useful work on a 16GB RAM computer that has to run WhatsApp, Discord, Slack, Teams, etc, and a browser at the same time.
I propose going from measuring RAM in gigabytes to just counting how many electron apps running in the background you can reasonably fit.
It is not only RAM. I have an old HP laptop with an AMD A6 with 16 GB RAM and, as soon as MS Defender starts, it is game over. Everything slows to a crawl. Modern software is just crap.
Why are you fixing their code? You're just doing the same thing as the LLM you're complaining about.
Also, as someone who attended university in Germany, the mental image of a professor helping undergrads with homework already seems strange if not funny to me. That is... at least I hope they're undergrads, because if people managed to get any sort of CS degree while having to rely on a LLM to code I might be sick.
What actually happened is that market cap declined by that amount, where market cap of course is just latest share price multiplied by shares outstanding.
Nobody should be surprised or care that this number fluctuates, which is why certain people try really hard to make it seem more interesting than it really is. Otherwise they'd be out of a job.
Also known as mark-to-market. Especially with the cyclical deals with stock at fictional (ie. never sold at that price) valuations, that are now all the rage.
Isn't traditional search going to have the same issue? If you search about how chocolate is good for you, you'll turn up plenty of sites willing to confirm your beliefs, AI summary or not.
Matching that when all you have is minuscule fraction of ASMLs R&D budget (~tens of billions for their latest process) would be... impressive.
There's a more likely explanation for their claims however.