It is reasonable to assume that the GPT 5.5 on thinking mode has significantly reduced the error rate.
I am sorry to break the bubble but that is a baseless assumption, if not in marketing. GPT models have been sold as having "PhD-" or "MD-" "level intelligence" since GPT3. Anectodally, recent models have been improving in some areas but regressing in others. "Frontier models" have incredibly opaque performance and safety benchmarks, and as time goes on more and more training data is LLM-generated, less and less comes from humans, and models start breaking down.
In response to your point: I am mainly interested in probabilistic reliability - if it gives the correct answer 99.9% of the time, it is clearly superior to the vast majority of human beings
Again, nowhere near the actual accuracy of current models. It is a big jump from 85% (wrong >1/10 of the time) to 99.9% (wrong 1 in 1000 times). At best it would barely break 90%, which is still 1 in 10.
Interestingly, my question "What was India like before the British arrived?" produces consistently biased and misleading answers. Though I haven't asked it for the new model.
An LLM's knowledge, its "intelligence", is its training data, nothing more, nothing less. Its scope, or "purpose" is its context/prompt, nothing more, nothing less. That means answering the question though the lens of British colonialism, based on a corpus of mostly "white history". I bet that if you ask the same question using a timeframe (i.e. "before the 14th century") and don't use the word "British" you'll get a slightly less, but still biased answer.
It's literal fake money. When you read news of Anthropic investing $400B in Google, do you think that's "money" in the same sense it is for real people?
The more recent report says corporate AI adoption has found several issues with AI, with human workers turning to automating dreary and mundane tasks they don't like doing, rather than valuable or meaningful work.
Thank god we have consulting companies to tell us what humans like!
I default to on, and turn it off if I need something that is blocking me and there's no workaround.
Although the traffic itself is protected, I find the signal of «I am doing something "secret" right now» to be best avoided both for passive metadata collection as well as active correlation attacks reasons; as well as to avoid leaks by clicking some link or just loading an image from some server that might be more "revealing" than I'd like. I'm not talking about anything super spicy, for example just by being a Lemmy user the image hosts you see more can depend on the comms/instances you use the most often - a pretty small segment.
On the LAN side sure, but I don't think many people would make a public website/webapp "true single stack". If there's a network appliance "terminating" the IPv6 connection and "NATting" it over IPv4 that's a terrible hack that is even worse than not having it at all imho
Unless you're talking about the link-local fe80 addresses, but those are basically sparkly MAC addresses
Sorry your feelings were hurt but the discussion is about AI datacenters with supposedly hundreds of thousands of Nvidia cards and very supposedly an electrical capacity of up to 9GW, no one cares about regular datacenters
It's not the opinion itself, it's just the attitude. Your comment is a perfect example of what I consider a good reply as you brought both hard data and some nuance in expressing how you formed your opinion
Ah, the literal thinkpol. Very cool, very nice