It’s true that the word has always been used loosely, but there was no issue with it because nobody believed what was called AI to have actual intelligence. Now this is no longer the case, and so it becomes important to be more clear with our words.
I think we should start by not following this marketing speak. The sentence “AI isn’t intelligent” makes no sense. What we mean is “LLMs aren’t intelligent”.
It’s not pretty, but you can print one in a single line of python:
print(*["".join(" " if i & j else "MM" for j in range(64)) for i in range(64)], sep="\n")
Just noticed I used “strongly” three times in the post. Gonna need to find new adverbs.
I think this is a very valid question. Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side.
I like it here in Germany. Laws and social safety are relatively strong. Oftentimes I see an article about some chemical common in food being a cancer risk, and then I research it and see that it is a US-centered article and that the EU already banned the chemical years ago.
Right wing populism is strongly on the rise here though. Racism and LGBTQ-phobia will strongly depend, with smaller villages and regions in East Germany being worse on average.
If you’re a top earner, you most likely won’t get the crazy high salaries here that you might expect from the US (even if accounted for cost of living, childcare etc).
Bureaucracy is annoying.
Rent can be very high depending on the region.
Job market strongly favors German speakers. I heard the Netherlands are more open in that regard. I think this will be your biggest hurdle.
Username checks out?
Sorry you have to go through that. Try not to let it get to you, but retain the ability to recognize constructive criticism.
Hahahahahaha
Hhaahahaha
Hahahaha hahaha
Asking as a layman, isn’t it well established that the stock market is extremely efficient and that active trading underperforms (for the same risk level) passively buying the market? Or does this not apply to very local markets?
I have no idea. For me it’s a “you recognize it when you see it” kinda thing. Normally I’m in favor of just measuring things with a clearly defined test or benchmark, but it is in the nature of large neural networks that they can be great at scoring on any desired benchmark while failing to be good at the underlying ability that the benchmark was supposed to test (overfitting). I know this sounds like a lazy answer, but it’s a very difficult question to define something based around generalizing and reacting to new challenges.
But whether LLMs do have “actual intelligence” or not was not my point. You can definitely make a case for claiming they do, even though I would disagree with that. My point was that calling them AIs instead of LLMs bypasses the entire discussion on their alleged intelligence as if it wasn’t up for debate. Which is misleading, especially to the general public.