FaceDeer

You’re in a community called “Technology” and it’s got a bunch of upvotes, so us, presumably.

Alright, so swap in some different words if you don’t like those. The basic point is the same - there’s a bunch of models from different sources that can solve this, it’s not just some weird one-off fluke.

Your own argument is a bit all over the place too, by the way. You said this puzzle “wasn’t tricky in the slightest” and yet that “it requires understanding what is being asked.” So only 71.5% of humans can accomplish this “not tricky in the slightest” problem, but there are some AI models that are able to “understand what is being asked”? Is “understanding” things not “tricky”?

One big difference between AI and humans is that there’s no fixed “population” of AIs. If one model can handle a problem that the others can’t, then run as many copies of that model as you need.

It doesn’t matter how many models can’t accomplish this. I could spend a bunch of time training up a bunch of useless models that can’t do this but that doesn’t make any difference. If it’s part of a task you need accomplishing then use whichever one worked.

It’s nice in that it gives the various Discord competitors a longer period to work on getting their software spiffed up.

Yes. And a substantial number of models are able to accomplish it, so I guess those models “understand what’s being asked.” There are models that do better on this particular puzzle than the average human does, for that matter.

It’s tricky in the sense that it requires abstract reasoning.

In fact, I prefer the use of local AIs and dislike how the field is being dominated by big companies like Google or OpenAI. Unfortunately personal preferences don’t change reality.

I’m not doing it on behalf of anyone. Should we ignore the technology because we don’t like the specific people who are developing it?

And yet the best models outdid humans at this “car wash test.” Humans got it right only 71.5% of the time.

Yeah, “AI is getting pretty good” is a very unpopular opinion in these parts. Popularity doesn’t change the results though.

And that score is matched by GPT-5. Humans are running out of “tricky” puzzles to retreat to.

Are you aware that there’s more to the court system than juries? And that those juries, too, operate under a strict set of rules about what they can and can’t rule on?

If you’re not investing anything in anything then this really isn’t your problem.

The companies that continue with human staff where others are replacing theirs, for example. Outsourcers providing those staff.

No, we fight to ensure that the rules are followed. In this case they are, the judge has discretion here.

Would you rather there were “mandatory minimum” laws when it came to this as well?

Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the “disliked” category?

But don’t you see? We don’t like these particular people, so they should suffer the maximum possible penalties under every circumstance.

If we liked them then punishing them for wearing glasses would of course be a travesty.

Depends entirely on the circumstances of where it does end up being built. I’m not sure what “gotcha” you think you’re making here? That Reddit comment is just me pointing out that when a business uses electricity they pay for it.

So it’ll be built somewhere else. Data moves around quite easily.

That’s not how bankruptcy works. The investors don’t get their money back.