Maybe they are an aircraft carrier that is deployed in places that no reasonable human can expect a service technician to visit, and this level of imbecility should generally be avoided.
You're being bad for the community. But thanks for including a well - spoken, albeit opinionated reply, in your otherwise rude, projecting, and downright censorious comment.
This rationale is fundamentally incorrect. God's gift of Free Will (unto Man) is specifically the power (with faith) to manifest that which is nondeterministic. Where you got this notion of determinism, and thus nonjudgment, is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.
> Where you got this notion of determinism (...) is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.
Nice try. But I'm assuming you are just unfamiliar with the history of the Christian church. Or if you just want to weigh in on the side of orthodoxy. But there is obviously a logical conflict between the notions of free will vs the deterministic aspect of religious teaching, sometimes called divine foreknowledge.
Or, maybe it's mainly the link between determinism and nonjudgement that you refer to as "mental gymnastics" etc (even though that's not what you are saying)? Well, granted that's not lifted from any theology that I'm aware of. It just seems a reasonable conclusion, given the premise of a predetermined world. And maybe also a way to sneak in a reminder that religion (and Christianity in particular) is mostly about keeping track of the beam in one's own eye, rather then the mote in someone else's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam
There was insufficient context.
Imagine I tell you "turn on that light, where I'm pointing". You'd do no better. No one here is under the conviction magical prescience is involved. This tooling provides the mechanism for an initial API call to be tied to the event described, in natural language, as "look where I'm pointing".
The first response (to ask for clarification) is precisely what a human agent would do to get context to clarify the coarse-grained request. The second guess, assuming you disabled the (explicit) allowance for clarifying questions, is also a magnificent recognition of implicit, common-sense context. Seems it's even more effective than you at following the true context for this tools appropriate placement.
Indeed, the context is "people using natural language to make requests". No soul on earth would consider/use your phrasing.
I (a human) have clue what your request is for - "lowest observed request volume"...??? Try "raisr the lights where we usually aren't asking you for much" and you might get tge same result. As far as I can tell, brightness increase in the garage (where, I'd guess, you've made the least requests), the AI apparenyly understood better than you or I what you meant.
That JSON isn't something you'd type, it's something that you can programmatically generate if you have a Home Assistant setup.
With super primitive wake word detection and transcription, the most you get is:
- What the user said
- How loudly each microphone in the house heard it.
If you take a look at the mock object in that transcript, that's what it maps to...
```json
{
"request": "I'm finding it hard to read"
"observedRequestVolume": [
3eQEg: 30,
iA0TN: 60,
h1T3y: 59,
5Qg1M: 10
]
}
```
The only part that would be human provided is: "I'm finding it hard to read"
The invented challenge was to see if using a suboptimal set of inputs (we didn't tell it where we are) it can figure out how to action.
It's zero-shot capability that makes LLMs suitable for assistants: traditional assistants can barely handle being told to do something they're capable of in the wrong word order, while this can go from hastily invented representation of a house and ambiguous commands to rational actions with no prior training on that specific task
Your false dichotomy is disingenuous, a distraction/derailment to the discourse, and does not engage in addressing the issue of a person wanting to pay the developer yet having no privacy-respecting way to do so.
Please revisit site guidelines on "snark".
There is no more information, as described in TFA, for reasons of this information having not been discovered yet by the researchers studying the new tech.
The argument for inevitability is inevitably a lie.
His opinion is engulfed in the notion that there exists no individual whose will is truly free as if given by God alone.
Hmm, I don't interpret it like that. He doesn't seem to be arguing that 100% of all people need religion. That's clearly not true and never has been. There were people pointing out the Bible was nonsense in the 1600s, and getting hung for it!
His point is that although we tell ourselves we live in a secular age now, there is a lot of surprisingly religious looking behavior re-appearing in supposedly non-religious contexts. He ponders why this is, and concludes that the widespread nature of religion in the past may not have been a mere phase of history but perhaps a basic need of most humans (but not all), and now the old religions are fading they're being replaced by new ones.
It's a viewpoint that's becoming more common, he certainly isn't the first to express this idea. And you don't need to be religious yourself to make the same observation.
