AGI never, neither America nor China
Wow. If you purposefully obfuscate your question, sometimes the AI can't extract your meaning. Powerful stuff. This a real setback for me, a user who wants to obfuscate my meaning on purpose.
>>108570189The point is AI is both incapable and unwilling of informing you of unknown unknowns. The things people who actually have jobs get paid to handle.
>>108570189/Thread>>108570310Ok, and? People have jobs to check for that, call me when they're being replaced
>>108570053My AI is smarter than your AI.
>>108570053I don't get what's the joke.
>>108570641OP
>>108570498why does your ai talk gay
>>108570712Why do you?
>>108570728why do you?
>>108570053stickers are for letter mail
>>108570498this actually explained what the fuck op was even fishing for to me i had no idea postage stamps were by weight
>>108570189FPBP
>>108570053it seemingly lacks any conceptual knowledge of the economy in general
>>108570310>incapable and unwilling to inform you of unknown unknowns>inform you of unknown unknowns(You) are closer to "AGI" than you take for granted
>>108570641American postage stamps tend to depict the US flag or notable aspects of the US, OP is just being a faggot since even though there is an overlap between stickers depicting the old glory and postage stamps depicting it, they are two very different things.>>108570991Same thing here, the fact US bills aren't made of paper aside, the material of a bank note (and most modern coins) is irrelevant. The mint could chisel "This is $20" on a rock, sign it and it would be legal tender.
>>108570189>the AI that can't even attempt to think abstractly will become AGI any minute now
>>108570498The difference in how you both prompted go a little way to explaining how your AI got the better answer too.In yours you ask if you "can" do this, which yes, you can, whereas in OP's prompt he just asks "do you", which for the most part, no you don't.
>>108570053Top US models have already achieved AGI though. It's just being used by enterprises and intelligence agencies.
>>108570991If someone approached me with no context and said "how convert paper to gold" I would say "what the fuck are you talking about?" Given that AIs are usually instructed to be helpful, that is not an option for them.
>>108573710that's clearly not true since you were able to guess what the answer he wants is. No idea why you insist that you are dumber than a chatbot, but you're not
>>108573783The context is artifically constructed questions where objects have been replaced with pedantically non-specific names which are also slightly inaccurate.If you said to me "a guy is going to approach you, and he's going to be purposefully trying to obscure his meaning, but there is a meaning in there, and the trick usually relies on a word with broad meaning actually referring to just one specific member of that set" I would probably not say "what the fuck are you talking about?" anymore, and in this thread I have that context too.
>>108570053>technology will surely stop advancing this time>mfwWhy are luddites like this?
>>108573978They're going to keep looking for more and more distant edge cases with more and more artificial bounds on them, and point them out like they've toppled everything.
>>108573971ok but that's not the context you fag. You, given the same instructions as the chatbot to be helpful at all costs, would have guessed it correctly. Stop it with the faggotry, they are correlation machines, this should easily be within their capabilities. It wouldn't even make them smart if it was.
>>108570053I don't even know wtf are you asking about.
