They can entirely take off and land at this point, it’s a lot more capable than you think.
You didn’t discuss the actual situation though, LLM models are capable of summarizing email chains just as well or better than a human at this point.
And yet it produces better summary output than many humans I’ve had the (dis)pleasure of reading the work of.
You’re assuming because it doesn’t function the same way as a human that the output can’t be equal or better. That’s simply not the case at this point in this type of task.
Autopilot in airplanes doesnt fly like a human, and yet its installed and running on almost every passenger flight in the world.
The same way it knows anything, by looking at all of the tokens.
Why? We already write summaries as humans for long concepts and ideas. Executive summaries, abstracts, conclusions, we’ve been doing this kind of language compression as humans forever.
Emails chains can often contain out of sequence information, repetitions, contradictions, disagreements, and just the stupidity of human communication in general.
Deterministic software can’t summarize a long email thread, or that would already exist as a feature.
We can’t even get deterministic software to ask people what they’re calling their cellphone provider about well enough to route them on anything more than broad keyword matching.
This anti-ai shit is nauseating. Businesses that rely on it too much are going to fail, but businesses that refuse to use it at all will get out competed over the next decade.
It’s a tool like any other, use it where it’s strong. Like summarizing a fucking email thread. Modern models and integrations are not just randomly hallucinating topics of conversation in a single email thread at this point, we’re well past that level of incompetence.
I know don’t like it, but this is a perfect use case for AI.
We can’t put that on companies though. We live in a democracy, if people choose not to vote for politicians that pass laws to restrict companies, that’s their choice.
It will drive up prices though, so people could already be making those choices with their purchasing and they’re not.
People being stupid is not an excuse for not being able to do the right thing.
To be clear, A staple food is something that provides a significant portion of the calories (or other nutrients) in an overall diet.
A single slice of bread for breakfast, which while popular as you point out, simply doesn’t come up to that level. From your own link only 60% of respondents even eat breakfast every day, and 20% don’t eat it at all.
The whole statement I made was that bread just isn’t consumed in the quantities or for the purposes that we have it for in North America, so that’s why trying to find things like Whole Wheat bread is so difficult.
Americans eat on average 37 to 53 pounds of bread per year, or around 50-80 loaves. Around two slices of bread per person per day. Extrapolating from the Japanese situation, their average is probably closer to 1/3rd of that value.
Why does even-ness matter? Just because our number system is decimal doesn’t mean nature fits into that pattern nicely.
at 0.08 you can be measurably tested to have worse reaction capability, so that’s where they set the limit.
4 beers at 12 oz isn’t exactly 0.08, that’s just approximately what it takes in the average person. Some people will be more, some less. Time and other factors affect it too.
Bread isn’t really a staple in Japan, even in it’s white form. It’s not something that you just have in the house all the time. They won’t make a sandwich at home, they may purchase and use it for toast but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Japanese person eat more than one slice at breakfast before. Even the bread at most stores is sold as 4-6 slices only rather than a full loaf. https://mel.jfconline.com.au/cdn/shop/files/37170.png?v=1748918723&width=900
You are not mistaken.
I don’t think you understand the level of difference in pollution associated with eating meat compared to being a vegetarian. It’s not like it only saves 10% or 20%, even accounting for transportation and the like it’s closer to a 50% reduction.
Most customers don’t understand, don’t care, or cannot afford your more expensive products, especially in this economy.
This is why it’s the fault of the customers and not the fault of the companies. That’s my entire argument. The companies didn’t make the alternative more expensive, reality makes the alternative more expensive. The fact that people choose to continue to shop on price is literally the core issue.
If those are the reasons you don’t want it, start with that up front. Don’t make bullshit claims about noise pollution or energy use.
This is the funny part. People complaining about pollution and energy use, when the REAL reason is that they’re afraid of the future of the technology.
If that’s you’re argument against it, just start with that, don’t make fake claims about noise pollution or energy use.
It’s total global energy usage. Water consumption is a different factor, and most of the datacenters now being built don’t even use any. The hardware constructions is a trivial component of the overall picture.
I’m not getting it backward.
While you’re right that my example is simplified, it’s not wrong. Shoes are actually like that in real life. A good pair of shoes can last many times as long as the cheap shoes, and pollute the same or even less than cheap ones. There is significant market competition from different companies including small start up brands and long term high quality brands that keep the entire industry quite well balanced.
If two companies produce high quality expensive shoes, that a customer likes equally, the only thing driving the consumer choice is going to be price. So one company cuts their costs a little bit to compete by dropping the quality ever so slightly. Consumers buy that, and then the other company says “I can do that too” cuts it a little bit more to undercut and it goes back and forth. The expensive shoes didn’t stop existing, customers can still choose them, but they aren’t choosing them. The back and forth only stops when the consumers refuse to buy it any cheaper because the quality is no longer even acceptable to them.
That is ENTIRELY customer driven. The moment a company releases a product that isn’t sufficient, consumers stop buying it, and the company goes back to the product that does sell and generate profit for them.
Car companies lobbied to kill emissions standards not because they didn’t want to produce EVs, but because it would cost them profit as fewer people bought cars that were more expensive to meet the standards. Oil companies may have tried to kill EV programs, but that’s not the car companies.
Upfront price isn’t real, people who are broke finance cars. An non-luxury EV is effectively the same price per month as a gas vehicle unless you don’t drive very much (no commute or very short commute) or happen to live somewhere where electricity rates are extremely high and gas costs are extremely low.
Your lack of education cannot be blamed on companies. That is YOUR responsibility, not theirs. The information is available for free to everyone at this point, even homeless people have access to the internet at this point. The fact that people choose not to be informed can only be blamed on them.
You may want to pretend that you’re not responsible because it lets you pick the easier option and not feel like you’re bad, but it’s no more real than crashing into a parked car and getting mad at them for being in your way.
Gnocchi ARE potato pasta (at least the traditional version is). The four ingredients are potato, wheat flour, eggs, and salt.
It’s not “all around” and literally less than 100 houses are impacted. It’s situated in an industrial zoning area obviously with the grouping there, so maybe the anger should go towards the zoning rules and not the datacenter itself.
You have this backwards. The current is being manufactured by demand, not manufacturing the demand. People WANT cheaper and easier.
You walk into a shoe store, you want some new everyday shoes, there are cheap and expensive versions. The pricier set has better materials for durability and comfort, and took more R&D to develop. The expensive shoes will last twice as long and be more comfortable, but are twice as expensive as the cheaper option. The pollution from each of the shoes is pretty similar. The company makes a profit of $5 from the cheap shoes, and $10 from the expensive shoe.
The shoe companies don’t care which one they sell you, they want to make the most profit and both types make them the same amount of profit (you need two pairs of the cheap shoes over the life of an expensive pair)
The majority of people will buy the cheaper pair.
Did the company engineer it so that you would buy the cheaper pair and pollute more? Or is the company just forced to produce them because that’s what people are choosing to buy?
There are situations and products where buying the expensive version is actually significantly CHEAPER long term, and people still choose the worst long-term option. Electric cars for example have had lower TCO (Total cost of ownership) in many areas (not all) and usage cases for a while now, and you still see people buying brand new gas vehicles. They also have a much lower lifetime environmental impact.
Again, the car company doesn’t give a crap. They get their profit on every unit sold regardless. They just make what people want to buy.
You are giving companies far too much credit for how much power they have. There are exceptions of course (Cough Cigarettes Cough) where companies are being blatantly evil by doing things like manufacturing demand through addiction, but the vast majority of companies have no such capability and the most “engineering” you’re going to get from them is an advertising campaign.
I don’t think, I know. I use these systems regularly. They do a great job of the summaries. I sometimes double check things, but it has proved unnecessary since the later gpt 4 level models.
Your negative feelings towards these systems don’t magically override reality.