<story><title>Western Digital cloud services down for 4 days</title><url>https://status.mycloud.com/os4</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>acchow</author><text>&amp;gt; We are &amp;quot;glorified&amp;quot; autocomplete engines too&lt;p&gt;This doesn’t feel intuitive to me or convincing. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? I certainly don’t feel like I’m an autocomplete engine.&lt;p&gt;Was Gödel also an autocomplete engine? How could an autocomplete engine come up with novel ideas like the incompleteness theorems and understand them?</text></item><item><author>esafak</author><text>We are &amp;quot;glorified&amp;quot; autocomplete engines too. The glory is in the fact that we have rich sensors, a memory, and a world model underpinning the engine. ChatGPT has a complex model, if not as complex as ours, and it is good enough to perform such tasks. As these models improve, they will compete with and outperform us on more and more tasks, at which point we will stop comparing our abilities to execute tasks.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Sure, it can do everything, but it&amp;#x27;s not human.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>j1elo</author><text>If ChatGPT is just a glorified autocomplete engine, which doesn&amp;#x27;t know the context or the meaning of what is being said (as I&amp;#x27;ve read in random discussions here on HN), then how come it is able to process the license text and summarize it in those terms? I would think that it would be needed to &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot; the license text in order to produce that easier to understand version.&lt;p&gt;So, does chatGPT really know what it&amp;#x27;s writing about, or not?</text></item><item><author>ferminaut</author><text>I asked chatGPT to summarize this like I was a child:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Imagine you have a toy that you&amp;#x27;re not sure will work perfectly or not. The people who made the toy say that they&amp;#x27;re not sure either and that you have to take the risk of using it. They also say that if the toy doesn&amp;#x27;t work well or isn&amp;#x27;t accurate, it&amp;#x27;s not their fault, and they won&amp;#x27;t promise to fix it or make it better. They also can&amp;#x27;t promise that the results you get from using the toy will be correct. So, you have to be careful and use it at your own risk!</text></item><item><author>dolmen</author><text>Terms of use:&lt;p&gt;YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. ALL PARTS OFTHE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY WESTERN DIGITALON AN “AS IS,” “WITHALL FAULTS,” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS ONLY, WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. WESTERNDIGITAL HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES (INCLUDING THE USE, PERFORMANCE, AND SUPPORT THEREOF), WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHERWISE,INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.WESTERN DIGITAL DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSURANCES WITH REGARD TO THE ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS OR OUTPUT THAT DERIVES FROM THE SERVICES.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.westerndigital.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;terms-of-use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.westerndigital.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;terms-of-use&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>thewataccount</author><text>IDK if it helps but I find these examples interesting, predict the most likely word for the following phrases (whatever immediately comes to mind first):&lt;p&gt;- hello! How are&lt;p&gt;- What is 1+1?&lt;p&gt;- Today is Monday. That means yesterday was&lt;p&gt;- My favorite color is&lt;p&gt;Humans will likely estimate these as &amp;quot;you&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;2&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;sunday&amp;quot;. For the last one, there&amp;#x27;s not enough context to estimate the next word, but we will almost certainly estimate it as a &amp;quot;color&amp;quot;, and might just have to guess at random &amp;quot;red&amp;quot;&amp;#x2F;&amp;quot;blue&amp;quot;&amp;#x2F;&amp;quot;orange&amp;quot;&amp;#x2F;etc, so there can be multiple possible answers. If you&amp;#x27;ve seen enough data you might know that a specific color like blue might be more frequently mentioned in this context, and would be more included to guess &amp;quot;blue&amp;quot; because of that.&lt;p&gt;1+1 is interesting because most humans can immediately estimate 2. However given the question &amp;quot;What is (3.21^7)&amp;#x2F;(3+6.4*11)?&amp;quot; we can no longer quickly estimate the answer, we would have to manually (even if mentally) calculate the answer. I think this closely parallels how our current LLMs can do basic math they&amp;#x27;ve seen a lot, but fall apart on more complex math since they aren&amp;#x27;t able to do the actual calculations and are forced to estimate.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Today is Monday. That means yesterday was&amp;quot; is interesting because this would appear to imply that there is &amp;quot;logic&amp;quot;. That you listed out the days of the week, looked at monday, and chose the day before. However, most likely you &amp;quot;just knew&amp;quot; it was most likely sunday given your previous knowledge. The LLM is unable to actually compute the answer, but it can estimate it based on it&amp;#x27;s training data.</text></comment>
<story><title>Western Digital cloud services down for 4 days</title><url>https://status.mycloud.com/os4</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>acchow</author><text>&amp;gt; We are &amp;quot;glorified&amp;quot; autocomplete engines too&lt;p&gt;This doesn’t feel intuitive to me or convincing. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? I certainly don’t feel like I’m an autocomplete engine.&lt;p&gt;Was Gödel also an autocomplete engine? How could an autocomplete engine come up with novel ideas like the incompleteness theorems and understand them?</text></item><item><author>esafak</author><text>We are &amp;quot;glorified&amp;quot; autocomplete engines too. The glory is in the fact that we have rich sensors, a memory, and a world model underpinning the engine. ChatGPT has a complex model, if not as complex as ours, and it is good enough to perform such tasks. As these models improve, they will compete with and outperform us on more and more tasks, at which point we will stop comparing our abilities to execute tasks.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Sure, it can do everything, but it&amp;#x27;s not human.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>j1elo</author><text>If ChatGPT is just a glorified autocomplete engine, which doesn&amp;#x27;t know the context or the meaning of what is being said (as I&amp;#x27;ve read in random discussions here on HN), then how come it is able to process the license text and summarize it in those terms? I would think that it would be needed to &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot; the license text in order to produce that easier to understand version.&lt;p&gt;So, does chatGPT really know what it&amp;#x27;s writing about, or not?</text></item><item><author>ferminaut</author><text>I asked chatGPT to summarize this like I was a child:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Imagine you have a toy that you&amp;#x27;re not sure will work perfectly or not. The people who made the toy say that they&amp;#x27;re not sure either and that you have to take the risk of using it. They also say that if the toy doesn&amp;#x27;t work well or isn&amp;#x27;t accurate, it&amp;#x27;s not their fault, and they won&amp;#x27;t promise to fix it or make it better. They also can&amp;#x27;t promise that the results you get from using the toy will be correct. So, you have to be careful and use it at your own risk!</text></item><item><author>dolmen</author><text>Terms of use:&lt;p&gt;YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. ALL PARTS OFTHE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY WESTERN DIGITALON AN “AS IS,” “WITHALL FAULTS,” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS ONLY, WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. WESTERNDIGITAL HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS,WARRANTIES, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES (INCLUDING THE USE, PERFORMANCE, AND SUPPORT THEREOF), WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHERWISE,INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.WESTERN DIGITAL DOES NOT MAKE ANY ASSURANCES WITH REGARD TO THE ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS OR OUTPUT THAT DERIVES FROM THE SERVICES.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.westerndigital.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;terms-of-use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.westerndigital.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;terms-of-use&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>codethief</author><text>&amp;gt; How could an autocomplete engine come up with novel ideas like the incompleteness theorems and understand them?&lt;p&gt;Depends on your definition of &amp;quot;novel&amp;quot;. Ideas like the incompleteness theorems, General Relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. were certainly new&amp;#x2F;unusual given the status quo in science at the time but they weren&amp;#x27;t coming out of thin air, either[0]. In fact, could it be that they were inevitable, given the data? Now you&amp;#x27;re no longer that far away from auto-completion.&lt;p&gt;[0]: We always ascribe to Einstein this singular genius (which he certainly was in a lot of ways) but one can easily forget over this that there&amp;#x27;s a clear survivorship bias – many other very smart people were working on unifying gravity with Special Relativity at that time.</text></comment>