> 7. AI no longer lacks taste and intuition; it lacks the ability to learn continuously.
Well I guess "usually bad taste" is not the same as no taste? I'm not quite sure how I would even define "no taste" now that I think about it?
> 8. Humans can learn continuously, but for AI to understand the same thing, it needs all the context at once—something that is nearly impossible. Therefore, AI cannot replace employees. So, the next generation of models must have continuous learning capabilities to be called the next generation.
I would agree that continuous learning/fine tuning/memory is probably the next major capability to crack. I guess reading between the lines that's what's needed to "replace employees", which I guess they are implying is the goal?
> 13. The ultimate endpoint of intelligence may all be embodied. Because for an ordinary person, their need is not a computer, but human labor.
I'm guessing this is a lost-in-translation thing because I don't think what I need from these models is anything equivocating "human labor", because we already have humans for that.
> 14. We charge a reasonable profit, not a profit-maximizing price.
Lmao as an American thats such a quaint (and respectable) ideal.
> 7. AI no longer lacks taste and intuition; it lacks the ability to learn continuously.
Well I guess "usually bad taste" is not the same as no taste? I'm not quite sure how I would even define "no taste" now that I think about it?
> 8. Humans can learn continuously, but for AI to understand the same thing, it needs all the context at once—something that is nearly impossible. Therefore, AI cannot replace employees. So, the next generation of models must have continuous learning capabilities to be called the next generation.
I would agree that continuous learning/fine tuning/memory is probably the next major capability to crack. I guess reading between the lines that's what's needed to "replace employees", which I guess they are implying is the goal?
> 13. The ultimate endpoint of intelligence may all be embodied. Because for an ordinary person, their need is not a computer, but human labor.
I'm guessing this is a lost-in-translation thing because I don't think what I need from these models is anything equivocating "human labor", because we already have humans for that.
> 14. We charge a reasonable profit, not a profit-maximizing price.
Lmao as an American thats such a quaint (and respectable) ideal.
HN thread from early this year, re: (no skill), no taste
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47089907