Assuming you could hint the furigana from the application, the phonetic transcript would make it more accurate.

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

2023: $32B

2025: $91B

2027: $300B (projected)

2029: $400B (projected)

“I’m happy to go bankrupt rather than lose this race” -Larry Page

The answer is almost certainly yes, and this is a problem for most users.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49624131

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Which means they can learn from whatever you discuss with ChatGPT unless you are going through a clean API (perhaps Bedrock? Anyone know?)

> We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).

This give parents useful control, and removes the state overreach.

But Go is also perfectly good at single threaded polling loops.

So probably there is nothing here.

Very painful read.

HYPOTHETICALLY let's say your uncle has an 80% chance of having cancer. Do you say that he has cancer? Or would you say it's likely that he has cancer?

"Trump's pathetic attempt at saber rattling" is the truest and fairest statement on the whole affair that I can possibly muster. Which is nothing like threatening to invade. Hilarious and sad, but not frightening.

Email me we could even discuss live! sutter at gmail

- "He hinted at use of force" (he did!)

- "I think he's implying the use of force" (you own your thoughts!)

Problematic statements:

- "He IS implying use of force!" is actually just a guess, even if (let's say) it's 80% likely to be true. It's still a guess. It's not something you know.

- "HE THREATENED TO USE FORCE!" you've just promoted your guess into yelling fire in a crowded theater because you're a troll

None of this reasoning applies if you're a cat. For a cat, words and sentences just register as an emotional valence, with no comprehension of what it means to distinguish fact from inference.

If you are a cat, I apologize for misapprehending your lived experience.

That what makes this a (potentially) safer model to build on top of

Now you’re saying he didn’t actually make a threat, but he implied one?

Which means you’re assuming his intent to be whatever makes for the most lurid headline.

Funny that these professional journalists didn’t think to ask to clarify such a monumental possibility. Or maybe the ambiguity was what they wanted all along. And apparently people (such as yourself) just eat it up

Did he hint at the use of the military? YES

Was that offensive on both sides of the atlantic, inside and outside of diplomatic circles? YES

Did he actually threaten to use the military? NO

Neither his poor statesmanship nor his lack of character change the meaning of the words, I can’t understand why you keep bringing that in.

But that really and truly is not a threat to use military force.

Consider the following hypothetical:

- * IF * the questioner had followed up with, "Are you threatening to use military force?" and

- * IF * Trump answered "of course not"....

Would that be a contradiction? Not at all! Because his first statement wasn't a threat.

This is literally strategic ambiguity combined with bad statesmanship. But if you look up any and every time he has been asked whether he would rule out the use of military force, I would expect that in every case he declined to rule it out. Of course he's a buffoon, so he might not have adhered to that correctly.