I don't really understand what you mean by this. The claim is that the same prompt with the same question produces worse results when it's queried in a model that has more than 200k tokens in its context. That doesn't have to do much with the "skillfulness" of using a model.
Prompt quality does matter, but at some point context side does matter.
I’ve had thing like a system that has a collection of procedural systems. I would say “replace the following set of defaults that are passed all around for system X (list of files) and in the managed (file) by a config” and it would do that but I’d suddenly see it be like “wait mu and projection distance are also present in system Y and Z. Let me replace that by a config too with the same values”. When system Y and Z uses a different set of optimized values, and that was clearly outside of the scope.
Never had that kind of mistakes happen when dealing with small contexts, but with larger contexts (multiple files, long “thinking” sequences) it does happen sometimes.
Definitely some times when I though “oh well my bad, I should have clarified NOT to also change that other part”, all the while thinking that no human would have thought to change both
None of what has been described is a "skill issue". The problem is when an identical prompt produces poor results once the context window exceeds 200k tokens or so.
> Consider that the POTUS is a 34x convicted criminal
To be fair, they were political persecutions and show trials just so that people like you could write that sentence and help the Democrat Party keep the presidency.
I’m not saying Trump is innocent in life, so don’t mistaken what I am saying for that. I am clearly and specifically saying that the 34 convictions are a joke and that only the gullible and the zealots buy into them.
Isn't the 34 counts due to the fact that the trial concluded that Trump paid Daniels via Cohen but hidden the payment as "legal expenses" and therefore falsified 34 different documents?
It is not like they invented extra fake actions that Trump did not do, it is all part of the same fraud. Either you recognize that Trump was guilty in this affair, and he gets X counts of fraud, X being a large number due to the number of document involved (and maybe someone can argue on the exact count, but 34 or 28 is not a big difference, so it is a different argument that move the goalpost), or Trump was not guilty at all. You cannot really say "well, Trump is guilty for the first 2 counts, but then not the 32 other counts": how can he be guilty in one document and not be guilty in the other which is basically identical except for the date?
Also, isn't a large number of counts of conviction pretty common in case of fraud? (for exactly the reason I've given: the falsification of each document counts for 1 count)
People who claims that 34 counts of conviction is the result of a political persecutions seems to have no idea that 1) this is usually how it works, this is usually what people get for fraud, there was no special treatment for Trump, 2) pretending that it was maybe 1 or 2 counts of felony but not 34 does not make any sense, 3) even if they wanted, it would not have been possible for the trial to conclude "just 1 or 2 counts", and it is therefore ridiculous to pretend that this number is the result of a political bias where they choose the higher number just to be mean toward Trump.
> and help the Democrat Party keep the presidencty
You're writing your own narrative there bud. I'm not even a USA citizen, I have literally zero ability to influence the USA electorate to any degree. So cut the rhetoric, it's tiring and frankly destructive to real discussion.
I'm neither gullible nor a zealot. Trump has a long standing history of ripping people off for many millions of dollars, regardless of the currency. There's an endless supply of receipts, give me a break.
And that's long before we even consider that he's literally operating illegal wars (not approved by congress), which _is_ breaking USA law.
To me it just comes across as low emotional intelligence. There are very few things worthy of being furious, in my opinion. Being furious is high cost.
Oh it’s deliberate. It’s been THE online platform for far left radicalization and extremist views for at least a decade now. It’s by far the most intolerant social media platform relative to the mainstream platforms.
Do you have any proof to support this claim? Stable coins use alone is in the 10's (possibly hundreds now) of billions in daily transaction globally. I'd be interested to hear your source for your claim.
First of all, you are the one who stated this as a fact, and then provided only anecdotal evidence in support of the broad claim. Your singular limited experience in one country cannot blindly extend to all such countries, so the onus is on you to provide support for your claim.
____________
I was also under the impression that adoption was fairly strong in many of these regions, and after looking into it, I see far more evidence in favor of that than a single anecdotal claim on a discussion board...
>Venezuela remains one of Latin America’s fastest-growing crypto markets. Venezuela’s year-over-year growth of 110% far exceeds that of any other country in the region. -Chainalysis
>Cryptocurrency Remittances Spike 40% in Latin America -AUSTRAC
>Crypto adoption has grown so entrenched that even policymakers are rumored to be considering it as part of the solution. -CCN
>By mid-2021, trading volumes had risen 75%, making Venezuela a regional leader. -Binance
_______
It actually wouldn't surprise me if most of this was hot air, but certainly you have actual data backing up the claim, not just an anecdotal view?
Using relative growth is one of the favorite tricks of hucksters that allows them to say "100% growth over the last year" to hide the fact of it growing from $5 to $10.
I don't really care enough about this to do proper research, but as another anecdote from someone living under 40% yearly inflation: nobody here gives a shit about cryptocurrencies. Those who can afford it buy foreign stock, houses and apartments; those who cannot, buy up whatever USD and EUR we can find.
Cryptocurrency was used by very few people for short-term speculation around 5 years ago, but even that died down to nothing.
> Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented (unless you're a criminal or an influencer who makes ungodly amounts of money off of suckers)
This is an incredibly uneducated take on multiple levels. If you're talking about Bitcoin specifically, even though you said "blockchain", I can understand this as a political talking about 8 years ago. But you're still banging this drum despite the current state of affairs? Why not have the courage to say you're politically against it or bitter or whatever your true underlying issue is?
How is the current state of affairs different from 8 years ago? I don't want to argue, just a genuine question, because I don't follow much what's happening in the blockchain universum.
I often pay for freelance work using crypto because it's much easier than dealing with banking infra to send payments to dozen of different countries. Sure you lose safety bank provides, but so you do when using cash.
I am in the camp that thinks that Blockchain is utterly useless for most people. Perhaps you can tell us about some very compelling use cases that have taken off.
> Am I at great risk for having most of my wealth tied to the dollar?
You are guaranteed to fail, no question.
The dollar is a corrupted unit of value that is meant to pump assets and exert global control. Look at any dollar buying power chart to see what your future looks like - a never ending chart down.
Unless you're holding only cash, why would that matter? Your real wealth can grow as long as you are holding assets that appreciate faster than the dollar depreciates.
It's not about super liberal views. The truck is a disaster, a complete creature of a vapid overpaid oligarch. You don't have to care about his politics to be disappointed with the loss of opportunity with the silly things going on in the CT design (a loss for the world really, with Tesla just deciding not to even try any more on cars). It's really a loss for humanity. We need great electric vehicles of all kinds.
Not about the politics of owning one, but they're just ugly as hell no matter where you live. MAGA conservatives that care about aesthetics do exist (e.g., my mother-in-law).
The people I work with who complain about this type of thing horribly communicate their ask to the llm and expect it to read their minds.
reply