It’s very likely that they were in the training data. I forgot to include that as a point. Unfortunately, though, that’s a very difficult variable to control in the LLM research.

Actual article here is worth a read because I find when newspapers write about these articles, they miss the point hard.

This actually has nothing to do with “memory”, but instead reading text. They studied 52 doctors responses to standardized (read publicly available online) cases written in front of them. Half got access to LLM. Neither group was significantly different.

Then they ran 3 trials solely with LLM and find that these were significantly better.

My thoughts: 1: Terribly small sample size overall, but would like to see more LLM numbers. 2: The primary purpose of this study was to explore if doctors are better with LLMs helping them. We’re not, and the authors discuss a very good point of “prompts matter”. 3: As is always my gripe with these kinds of things, written text translates to real patients extremely poorly. A computerized text interface is better at handling and responding to text patients. Human doctors are still better at treating human patients.

You’re a lot closer than you’d think. In another comment, they say their oldest is not yet a teenager.

Gotta be a rough household to live in.

Sounds kinda like “your body my choice” is you ask me, not letting other people reproduce.

Here’s to hoping it’s a typo of “don’t have children with them”, but that’s a hell of a typo.

I believe it’s a reference to this.

I enjoyed watching that when it was first created! Any word of a 1080p for that one? I’d even take a release of the timestamps so that I could make the edit to my 1080p versions.