This is maybe 1/3 of my use of GPT4. Quite often, the log dump and nearby code is enough, often even without explicit instructions. Being able to do this task is similar to GitHub CoPilot code autocomplete working well too. Still not 100%, but right often enough that it flipped my use from not-at-all in GPT 3.5 to quite-often in GPT4.
I find this hard to believe. The jump from 3.5 to 4 was huge, like coming from a toy to an actually useable product. And I personally haven’t noticed any significant downgrade from plain 4 to Turbo.
nah - between govvies, frat guy investors, or giant companies .. none of those are guaranteed successful. Each of those can and will fail miserably, or get a lot done.
I like steel in furniture, especially for larger items like bookshelves - you get the level of rigidity that you can only get from very expensive and massive chunks of hardwood.
Regarding France, my understanding is that their scores are some of the lowest in Europe and below the OCED average on the PISA exam (comparatively, the United States is above the OCED average), though there might be demographic considerations.
If that is the only alternative you can imagine (or rather, pretend to be able to imagine to form a bad faith response), there is no point in continuing this conversation.
> that their scores are some of the lowest in Europe and below the OCED average on the PISA exam
Exactly! And yet they consistently produce some of the best engineers and scientists in the world, and have a stellar pure and applied mathematics tradition. So tell me, does this say something about the French schooling system, or about metrics like the OCED average?
Nevermind, don't tell me; your first paragraph above already demonstrated what kind of response to expect.
they consistently produce some of the best engineers and scientists in the world
All countries are capable to turning out a handful of amazing engineers and scientists each year from their top percentile students, almost no matter how terrible their school system is overall, so that in itself is pretty uninteresting. Is there any evidence that they are turning out significantly more of them that the rest of the OECD?
The other, more interesting, metric is how are their 50th percentile students doing, or their 25th or their 10th percentile students.
Sure PISA might to be a great metric, but just focusing how well the very brightest students in the country do is a far worse metric.
I like how the concept that third world workers that are exploited by greedy capitalists to undercut native labor are being treated unfairly and exploited is presented as novel.
That's literally why they're there in the first place.
If you want to talk about contributions to the general theory of relativity, why not talk about the people that Einstein is alleged to have plagiarized, Henri Poincaré, David Hilbert and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz?
Neither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity.
The only relevant priority dispute is whether Einstein or Hilbert wrote down the correct field equations first. This was after a long correspondence between the two, in which Einstein explained his ideas -- there is no dispute that Einstein "invented" General Relativity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_di...
> Neither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity
Well, that's just plain wrong. From the horse's mouth:
> As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments
Yes, everybody agrees, but you specifically responded to the statement that Poincaré and Lorentz had nothing to do with GR. You said that statement was wrong, but it looks more like you confused SR and GR, which are two entirely different beasts.
Well the comment by pnin made it about GR, when the parent by boringuser2 was about the general contributions to relativity, both SR and GR. I believe "general theory of relativity" to be different than "general relativity" here, the former encompassing both SR and GR. Maybe that's where our misunderstanding comes from. Also, if you believe that GR has absolutely nothing to do with SR, then no Lorentz has no relevance to the genesis of General Relativity.
Anyway I don't believe we're having a discussion worth having here.
Plagiarized is too strong of a word. Poincaré too based his work on Lorentz's. And both with Einstein he sort of derived E = m c * 2, independently and earlier. But Einstein's publication was more complete.
Science is not totally ordered, the same invention can occur at two different places from the same shoulders of the same giant. Science is just partially ordered.
The paper where Einstein introduces special relativity is really explicit about just providing a new way to think, not new mathematics. It starts out with explaining that there are two explanations for the same electrodynamical physics depending on the velocity of the system, and that's really weird.
Einstein's special-relativity fame comes from saying: no, actually, that is expected and they're really one explanation if you think like this rather than like that, even if the math works out the same as Lorentz's.
Right, it's not so much a critique of the author's work that I've presented as much as a meta-commentary on the article in the context that we're posting on a forum that aggregates content for public consumption.
The author is fine, he can publish whatever he pleases. I can't stop him, as you've pointed out.
From a meta-commentary perspective, it is actually quite interesting that Einstein's alleged plagiarism covers many diverse sources.
Thank you for the boring off-topic comments, boringuser2. Maybe boringuser1 was too interesting, so you were created. I promise to read the article if you do.
But that's just how science work, and no ill will would have been employed by any participant; just as their fanclub want to pit them against one another.
Thanks, nice link. I recall hearing or reading somewhere that Einstein leaned heavily on Caratheodory for the more difficult math, and I had a strong hunch that something like general relativity would have emerged within the next decade from when Einstein published his theory, if Einstein hadn't gotten there first. However, I didn't realize it was so close, so contentious, and so well documented.
You are thinking of specific relativity. He didn't plagiarize the theory of specific relativity either because nobody had suggested it. Poincaré's idea of relativity relied on the existence of a Luminiferous aether which was disproved in the early 20th century.
One thing that absolutely savages my mind is the fact that those on the nominal left-wing have abandoned this obvious truth and focused on an ideology that benefits some sort of global majority versus their own theoretical constituents.
The perfect example is Bernie Sanders going from "immigration is obviously bad because its a tool capitalist's use to undercut American labor" to generic racial grievance "progressive" guy.
If goods and capital are free to move across borders, it doesn’t matter whether people are coming to your country or staying where they were, because you’re competing against them either way.
And, capital can move way, way faster than populations. We are competing against the entire nation of China. There are over a billion of them. Have a billion people moved to the United States in the last 20 years?
Right wing media is counting on you to not be paying attention.
There a fewer factory jobs now than there were 30 years ago. Did Mexicans come and move into those factories? Or did the factories move to Mexico?
You're hand-waving the effects of a labor surplus created by immigration on wages.
During covid-19, when immigration was suppressed and the labor surplus was attenuated, something amazing happened -- wages rose across the board in America.
Yes, outsourcing is a huge issue. It is dealt with in various ways, and there are substantial barriers to in sourcing (my company has tried to do this, but decided to hire in America due to substantial costs).
Immigration is also a huge causative factor impacting wages and labor bargaining.
If you're a protectionist, that's good, I also support that. But you should probably apply your ideology across the board rather than selectively, which I suspect you cannot do due to your partisanship.
This book took me from having nothing -- literally being a political science major grocery store employee -- to making 2xx,xxx YOY.
It was challenging and made me question whether or not I had it in me to code. Turns out, I could, and, vis-a-vis my peers, exceptionally well.
Well, I took me, but this book was my first real introduction to computer science.
Funnily enough, I didn't then and don't now personally care for the author (he seems untalented as a teacher), but I feel he accidentally made a good resource in his hubris.
It’s enough to do well, but certain we all grow for quite a while after that. The improvement typically springs from discipline at that point rather than calculative ability however.
I've seen interns that are better than some of my 15+ year colleagues.
I'm better than most of them myself, but I've also seen interns better than me -- better problem solving skills and attention to detail I suppose. Very inconsistent correlation in terms of time spent outside of filtering people. Of course, you used to have a knowledge advantage that would hold for a bit, but intelligent usage of GPT-4 removes even that.
I'm pretty sure the whole enterprise is a combination of being gifted intellectually, with maybe a sprinkle of actual effort and abilify to sustain your attention on supremely boring tasks -- but mostly just your innate gifts at work.
When I say "better than"... well, here's my opinion: In programming, someone more talented can be up to 10x more productive at each tier of competence, shall we say. My least productive (senior and junior) colleagues are 10-100x less productive than me. My most productive colleagues (senior and junior) are probably 10x more productive than me.
This is an interesting discussion to me because I used to believe the whole tiered conception of programming knowledge until I learned that this wasn't the case through experience.
It's all just problem solving, and you're either smarter or less smart and you can't change this with even 1000 years of study.
You’re comparing with others, however I meant compared with yourself. I look at my Uni code and see a quantum leap from that to now. Some of it is better tooling but a significant part is discipline and experience.
Knowing what rabbit holes not to go down is the true 10x. Not the faster typing part.
I’ve never met a kid that blew me away, but would like to. Presumably they are shuttled off to an underground bunker somewhere.
Also, if one hasn’t read the historical literature such as Petzold’s Code, Mythical Man Month, High Output Management, McConnell *, etc they have a long way to go. No amount of bit-twiddling proficiency can make up for that. Unless you’re in the twiddling business. :-D
Hah, I let a few silly things slide as youthful exuberance but this one will be laughable even to you in not too many years. Zuck learned that one in public, so you’re in good company.
