> better at incorporating search results in its answer vs gpt-4 bing
How are you getting it to incorporate search results in its answers?
I can't for the life of me get it to find any real-time external data except for the 5 official 'extensions' under settings, which are for Flights/Hotels/Maps/Workspace/YouTube.
Did you mean that, or have you found a workaround to get Bard to actually search on Google?
- This is not Gemini performing a search.
- This is Google providing a layer of ass-covering in case Gemini produces a factually incorrect reply.
Right? I am looking for something like ChatGPT with Bing - it will run a query, pull back results, and operate on them, all dynamically within the system.
Gemini doesn't seem to do this, no matter how you try to wrangle it.
Is that for using a personal moral definition of consent (even if it is quite a popular one) or using a scientific definition? I find most people will find scientifically consensual cases morally wrong when considering the edge cases (since the scientific tests for consent are not based on age and instead based on measuring ability, they are mostly developed for studying mentally disabled adults, but the finding apply regardless).
I suppose that gets more into agency? I would assume, barring a good reason, that in most conversations 'consent' would imply that the persons involved in fact had agency to give consent.
Nope. There is no such thing as morality apart from God. The universe doesn't care (it can't). All morality then is man made. To say something is morally wrong is to create an absolute. No one has the power to do so. The best you can say is that you think it's wrong, which means you don't feel something as positive.
On a fundamental level I agree with your point. Truly absolute morality implies some kind of external rule of law, which implies some kind of external lawmaker.
Where I disagree is this idea - whether you intended it or not - that non-absolute morality is somehow arbitrary, or worth less than absolute morality.
I don't agree with that: I believe that torturing someone is immoral because humans dislike being tortured (if you're in that 1% who doesn't mind torture, it's not immoral - torture away). You reduce that to "most humans don't feel positive about being tortured". But that's not a choice that 99% of humans made: it's a fact of human biology. Humans don't choose to feel pain when someone rips out their fingernails. You can say "disliking pain is arbitrary". It may be arbitrary in some sense, but not in the context of humanity, and we're all humans.
If you want to say that this kind of "moral thinking" isn't "true morality" because it's not absolute, fine. That's valid stance to take. But whether you call it morality or something else doesn't make it less valid or less useful. And to suggest that humans should not take our innate likes (warmth, safety, respect) and dislikes (pain, insecurity, lack of respect) into account when we interact with each other simply because human biology isn't "absolute" is - pardon me - fucking insane.
My issue is that people make absolutist arguments. They get high and mighty about something they think is True. They then attempt by force of law or culture to make others act within their world view.
Morality is nature-made, not God-made. All you need is empathy, and it turns out that mammals have empathy, and so do birds and others. The golden rule follows from empathy.
Natural Law is NOT a new idea, really. Nor is it foreign to religion! St. Thomas of Aquinas is the father of Natural Law -- almost a millenium ago now -- and a big deal in Christianity. Natural Law is a big deal in the Catholic Church, for example. One might say that St. Augustine vs. St. Aquinas is just a religious expression of the Plato vs. Aristotle.
You'll find plenty of well-read, well-educated, very religious people who take a Natural Law approach to morality and who would agree that what happens in private between consenting adults is almost entirely moral (with some limits, such as perhaps that giving one's life up consensually is not moral). (I myself am agnostic, but still, I take a Natural Law approach to morality.)
Of course, there are schools of thought that reject Natural Law, but you must at least acknowledge Natural Law as a concept. And you should at least accept that Natural Law works for others even if not for you. You have to co-exist with the rest of us.
(Us noticing that other animals have empathy is fairly new though, I think.)
I'm not sure I follow, though it seems we might agree?
You say something is wrong, I can say you saying that something is wrong is, in itself wrong. Ultimately, it either doesn't matter at all (we're all just talking), or enough other people agree with us that there is some social consequence.
It just means we're the arbiters of morality; it's a universalism that evolves. It's a social contract. There are some things that don't go right by people.
I strongly disagree. I am atheist but have no doubt that wantonly killing people (or for that matter, animals) is morally wrong. Empirically, I don't think atheists are much more likely than theists to commit crimes.
Why do you say it's wrong? Wantonly killing a rapist is wrong? Wantonly killing a person in direct competition to resources is wrong? How are you proving any of this? Nature doesn't show that. There are many species that survive using that exact technique.
You need to analyze your basis. It's probably something like, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't". That's fine, but why is that a good idea? Why is life good? Look around at the suffering. It could all be over tomorrow if everyone died. Honestly, atheists assume a moral view from theists. Stalin was right: kill your enemies is fine. You can't prove a moral absolute. You can only prove a feeling set that achieves an end you declare is right.
As to committing more crimes, of course not. Why would an atheist put themselves in harms way of the masses? They know that the masses will quickly end their lives for certain crimes. For other crimes, their lives are functionally ended due to incarceration. According to the rational atheist worldview, living is good. Living as free as possible is better. Therefore only commit the crimes you know you can probably get away with.
Ultimately, an atheist can no more say, in an absolute sense, that Joker is worse than Batman.
Yes. Ethics is nothing more than an arbitrary complex of rules which seek an arbitrary end. The degree to which the individual approximates the system defines how ethical they are.
Is 24 not a personal assistant? :) Yes, taskrabbit seems appropriate for discrete tasks (wait from 12PM to 3:27PM for my repair window)... but I'd insist on bonded people, not randos, even ones with lots of 5-star ratings, to be in my home.
Maybe something in a chatbot for text-based interfaces? Make it speak/listen with text->speech and voice recognition? Since most of the human interactions on the other side of bad customer service are scripted, should be possible to build counter-scripts.
But after all that I don't think I'd pay anything just for this on an ongoing basis. So who is the market? Impatient wealthy people? We're back to assistants!
Depends on your browser, but for example, in Chrome, you can set your default search in chrome://settings/searchEngines for the omnibox search. Mine is:
Amortize the time he took figuring it out / getting his systems in place across that weekly schedule, though. I bet even after 20 years that's still closer to two days a week. ;)
Vending machines are still a thing, too. Similar model. All those $5.99 transaction fees add up. Even at 2.99, the machine pays itself off in a year with ~5 transactions a day.
They are, actually. All your operationally necessary but not directly revenue generating business units/functions are cost centers, in this model. And they get beaten with the same stick.
Second this. My go-to for years now. Inexpensive for what it does. Factor in the cost of building out it's features in your home rolled solution, and you'll be saving a ton. Plus the team is very responsive if you need support. And is open to small consulting projects if you need something beyond your own abilities.
> better at incorporating search results in its answer vs gpt-4 bing
How are you getting it to incorporate search results in its answers?
I can't for the life of me get it to find any real-time external data except for the 5 official 'extensions' under settings, which are for Flights/Hotels/Maps/Workspace/YouTube.
Did you mean that, or have you found a workaround to get Bard to actually search on Google?