But it understands English words and translates the meaning behind them into code very well, particularly with a bit of iteration. Simply taking the interface from writing code to speaking in plain language is a huge practical accomplishment.
That's why my current plan is to get ChatGPT 4 to help me set up my local open source implementations of Orca and Stable Diffusion. Got MusicGen running locally anyway; that was pretty easy.
HTML clicked for me one day when I mentally decoupled the hypertext from the actual browser rendering. So many of us think HTML and imagine the point is to render a webpage. But HTML describes the semantics, topology, and content of a document. It’s 100% valid to “render” HTML in some other format like a PDF or an mp3.
I'm hoping we see a move to allow the rendering of the webpage to be entirely up to the users. Just provide the data, and let me decide how I want to interact with it. But that would ruin SEO and Ads, so we're gonna get in a buncha legal battles about web scrapers instead.
But reader mode is mostly bunch of heuristics with tons of ad-hoc special cases and hacks instead of relying documents to be well-structured. So in many ways it is the opposite of successful example.
Is it kind of a compromise then to "tag" HTML with classes for CSS?
CSS doing the "rendering," like laying out mobile-responsive versus desktop.
I wonder how we would separate out explicit class names from HTML, unless the tags themselves are <custom-names />. (Micro frontends & web components?)
HTML is the semantics, CSS is the styling, but you need both. Which is why browsers come with default CSS (which you can unset) for everything. You get the element tag to say "what it is", and you get the CSS classes to say "what visual rules to apply".
This is mostly true, but the asterisks cause a little chaos.
> HTML is the semantics ... the element tag to say "what it is"
Maybe this is best framed as a perspective thing.
"Semantic HTML" is about HTML authors using HTML elements in a way that is consistent with the definitions laid out in the specs. These definitions try to specify element semantics because user agents want to be able to do less-dumb things (things that don't work as well if HTML authors are constantly abusing tags for some presentational effect even though the semantics are weird or wrong).
The main consequence of this is that tag semantics (from the UA's perspective) won't always square with what the author assumes it means unless they go study the spec. For example, it's probably not hard to go find cases where the <address> tag is used for the obvious thing from the author's perspective: marking up addresses. The spec, however, explicitly contradicts this surface-level reading: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/sections.html#the-add... (i.e., it can be "correct" for pages to contain a mix of addresses that do and don't have the address tag.)
We also have a lot of tooling that invites semantic abuse for presentational effect (i.e., using markdown blockquotes as notes, and even the fancy behavior browsers attach to the <details> element).
Code Interpreter is currently available for Plus users. (Enable beta in settings.)
It lets ChatGPT run code, optionally with access to files you've uploaded. You can ask ChatGPT to analyze data, create charts, edit files, perform math, etc.
Here's how it works:
1. You upload Python code that you'd like to execute.
2. ChatGPT sends the code to a Python interpreter.
3. The Python interpreter executes the code and returns the results.
4. ChatGPT present the results to you.
This setup is like a stateful Jupyter notebook environment, allowing for the running of individual code cells. The environment has access to a variety of Python libraries, so you can use it for many different tasks, such as data analysis with pandas, scientific computations with numpy, or plotting with matplotlib.
There are a few restrictions to keep in mind:
* The Python environment does not have internet access, so it can't make network requests. This means you can't install additional Python packages, use APIs, or scrape websites.
* There is a timeout of 120 seconds for each code execution. If your code takes longer than that to run, it will be stopped.
* The Python interpreter has limited memory and CPU resources, so it may not be able to handle very large computations or data sets.
None of that is how communication works. It requires (basically equal) effort on the part of the sender and the receiver. Gatekeeping communication styles is just a symptom of not having control in other areas.
If I've already emailed someone and they haven't responded in 48 hours, can I send a message that just says "Hi" or is "Hi, respond to your email" more appropriate?
It’s as simple as “Hey gAI, I sent an email about xyz the other day, have you had a chance to look at it?” No need to say nothing but hi or be indirect.
If someone's not responding to their emails, they've already failed to meet me halfway in communication. It's not my responsibility to go even further before they make a first attempt.
What a weird take. Unless you have immaculate email filtering or receive very few emails, it’s not hard for emails to slip through the cracks. You can complain about someone “not meeting half way” in a phone call or IM with read receipts, but email is one way communication until you actually get a response.
> they've already failed to meet me halfway in communication
This hypothetical doesn’t seem to make sense (maybe I’m missing something). If the person is communicating ineffectively in email, what does it solve to send them a Slack (or whatever) message that simply reads, “hi”?
Well hold on now, how can we be sure they knew how to handle short text strings? I think this requires Meta and Twitter to spend all their money fighting one another in court.
