I find a lot of problem so far with the false equivalence of following commonly associated words (ie: filling in the blanks with the highest probability combination).

For example ChatGPT will make a statement that says general relativity explains gravity at all scales (in some specific context), and you are left wondering if it means all the peer-reviewed articles use zero detractions from concrete. Are the majority of peer-reviewed articles indicating that gravity is explained at "all scales"?

First of all it does not explain scales at or below quantum, so immediately we have a boundary problem. ChatGPT is asserting the boundary of general relativity goes below where it is logically supported in a rigorous manner.

Second of all, this is likely highlighting a problem that more rigorous AIs will have to solve. How do they know what clauses are sufficiently proven if the body of science says gravity is explained at all scales. How long until the AI discovers that boundary problem and searches smaller scales?

I've noticed other times too when ChatGPT says "is" instead of "has been". To me it implies a level of certainty that I don't appreciate as a proponent of the scientific method.

To expand slightly more, the problem reminds me in some ways of a composition of math functions, some of which are failing to consider inflection points or second derivative tests in order to selectively change "is" to "has been" or "is" to "is likely" or "is" to "is according to significant authority sources". ChatGPT hits the "is" but fails to give the precise pointer.

Side note: I use crazy term like second derivative test which is not to be taken literally. Think of it more as a highlightion of scenario where a higher order analysis might be needed to resolve loose to strict or strict to loose equality of a given fragment. Implicit context is a nasty thing when you must recurrently analyze micro and macro closure as each new token or group of tokens is added as each affects the overall accurate and precise meaning. My goal is not to provide a solution area but rather to provide specific example of an issue type.

Being incorrect is spreading misinformation. It's not spreading disinformation or lying however because those require the intent to deceive. If I say that Michael Jordan in the NBA's all-time leading scorer, because that's what I truly believe, I'd be spreading misinformation because that's not true, but since I actually believe it it's not disinformation or lying.

I've been having them write competing haikus. Chat GPT is more imaginative. Bard is rather direct.

I think what we are getting down to is, being incorrect = spreading misinformation.

I wish we could just ban land mines forever.

Soon, common knowledge will be entirely made up.

And they will waste a billion for the illusion of cutting costs.

It is a drone with metal scanner.

Probably, not enough monetization for Amazon.

Amazon should spin it off, either through The Stock Markey or by direct sale.

> Not a single franchise that already existed on Playstation has yet to be removed from Sony’s platform

The Outer Worlds sequel definitely appears to be.

The first game was on Playstation.

This new patch that they are selling to upgrade to the new consoles, and by all accounts is the OPPOSITE of "high quality", are them still selling to Playstation consumers.

The Outer World 2 is only scheduled for Xbox and PC.

Try explaining that.

> Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?

Starfield was premiered at Bethesda's own independent E3 conference in 2018. All of their games at that conference were games that were expected on all major platforms at the time, Xbox, Playstation, and PC.

Therefore Starfield, from the very beginning, had a clear expectation that they were going to be available for all platforms that Bethesda/Zenimax had already been making games for.

You already know this. I really hope you don't start adopting Xbox marketing-speak to try and get around that one.

Maybe they try to avoid human error and bias in their results. Fellow chatbot has no such vices.

" ... citing as evidence a news article that discusses a tweet in which a user asked Bard when it would be shut down and Bard said it already had, itself citing a comment from Hacker News in which someone joked about this happening, and someone else used ChatGPT to write fake news coverage about the event."

Seems like they did their own research!

> Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from you...

This isn't working. You need to stop this ad hominem type of attack, because its not going to work with me.

> Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses....

No they haven't. We've been told that Microsoft's Xbox division has EARNED LESS MONEY during its lifetime than Sony's Playstation business.

Sony biggest acquisition has only half of the cost of Microsoft buying Zenimax at $7 billion dollars.

And then Microsoft, a year later, has the ability to spend something at 10x the dollar amount. $70 billion.

Xbox has never generated any such earnings or "success" to be able to buy out such large entities. They are leveraging Microsoft's success from OTHER BUSINESSES.

So......no. Xbox absolutely has not done anything to "earn" this.

This is clearly an attempt to buy out and corner a market.

> I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.

Yes, there absolutely is. You are plainly ignorant if you think that is not the case.

> What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.

No, it is relevant. Because you are trying to say that its okay for Microsoft to do this, because Sony has ALREADY COMMITTED such bad practices.

.........when Sony hasn't.

And you're trying to make a false-equivalency.

> You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties.

Except you are trying to portray Sony that they did something "anti-consumer" for properties that they cultivated and invested in.

> they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.

No they aren't the same.

And yes the law should and DOES distinguish something that is created, and something that is bought.

The FCC, the CMA, doesn't not step in when Sony created a massively large IP that did not exist prior to them creating it.

They do step in when somebody is trying to buy an already existing large IP.

You ever seen a regulator come in an when Nintendo sold too many copies of a particular video game? You ever seen a regulator come in when Take-Two sold 40 million copies of Grand Theft Auto?

or being unable to correct your previous statement for whatever reason.

Or refusing to correct your previous statement.

Really? Sony bought the Final Fantasy IP to permenantly control?

When did this happen?

Many antipersonal mines don't use metal.

Hear that whooshing noise? It’s not just a drone.

I can't wait until they start having Rap Battles. Throwing down some sik rhymes dissing each other would be hilarious.

But he will save lives.

Being confident in your incorrect information is.

Being incorrect =/= spreading missinformation

Lulz! Love it!

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)

> Now a novel combination of a metal detector and a drone with five degrees of freedom is under development at the Autonomous Systems Lab at ETH Zurich.

> Unless you want to mount your metal detector on some kind of gimbal system, you need a drone that can translate its position without tilting, and happily, such a drone not only exists but is commercially available.

> The drone used in this research is made by a company called Voliro, and it's a tricopter that uses rotating thruster nacelles that move independently of the body of the drone.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: drone^#1 detector^#2 system^#3 Metal^#4 explosive^#5