I mean 8 crashes is not a lot to work with statistically to the point where this is nearly meaningless.

i’ve seen a car crash as soon as it came off the lot and if I cherrypicked that and 7 other crashed cars I’d probably consider that brand very unsafe.

I don’t see how this gives sample size, are you considering every mile a sample?

i’m not worried about the sample size for regular cars but there’s like 10 of these driving right now.

no you wouldn’t, it would just make it less accurate

it’s correct that 8 is not the sample size, but they didn’t give the sample size, it would be how many cars there are and the number of miles, not just the number of miles, they also didn’t establish fault and this was with a human in the loop, i’m all for hating elon but this isn’t worth reporting without more info.

This is based on a sample size of 8

I would totally buy it if I had money to waste, I would love to be able to take my tablet anywhere with me like this and don’t care about the size of phones, they fit fine in my pockets.

He would say that was not an LLM and therefore does not apply here.

I wish I could get info about north korea that isn’t from a totally untrustworthy source, dailynk is nonsense

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-daily-nk-news-north-korea-brought-by-cia/285873/

link?

So many people have successfully argued against claims I did not make.

https://www.emergentmind.com/papers/2409.06185

https://huggingface.co/papers/2409.04109

ai does new things all the time and this is easily validated and explained with the concept of temperature.

It is validated, yale confirmed that it is the case that a novel hypothesis was generated, it was not REPRODUCED, which is irrelevant to my claim that they created a novel hypothesis.

i see how that wording is confusing.

It doesn’t have to be to invalidate the claim. It proposed a novel hypothesis, this is the easiest thing to check in the world.

since I don’t have to rely on google it really doesn’t have to even be a decent source.

https://www.emergentmind.com/papers/2409.06185

https://huggingface.co/papers/2409.04109

You have not said one thing i did not already know, none of it has to do with anything

an ai did something novel, this is an easily verified fact. The only alternative is that somebody else wrote the hypothesis.

Uhhh everyone is saying this is normal and I don’t have it…

He knows the basics, it’s just that they don’t lead to any of the conclusions he’s claiming they do. He also boldly assumes that everyone who disagrees with him doesn’t know anything. He’s a beast of confirmation bias.

You addressed that they haven’t tested the hypothesis completely while completely overlooking the fact that an ai suggested a novel hypothesis… even if it comes out to be wrong it is still undeniably a novel hypothesis. This is what was validated by yale…

you have still failed to answer the question. You’re also neglecting to include an explanation of temperature in your argument, which may be relevant here.

You sound drunk on kool-aid, this is a validated scientific report from yale, tell me a problem with the methodology or anything of substance.

so what if that’s how it works? It clearly is capable of novel things.

yes, google reported about their ai discovering a novel cancer treatment, of course they did?

now tell me about how it isn’t true. Do you have anything of substance to discredit this?

this reeks of confirmation bias, did you even try to invalidate your preconcieved notions?

https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gemma-ai-cancer-therapy-discovery/ how did it do this?