ADeerAppeared

5 ms·

1.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> If you care then you'll fact check before publishing. Doing a proper fact check is as much work as doing the entire research by hand, and therefore, this system is useless to anyone who cares about the result being correct. > I
2.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> The proof is in the fact that it flies, not what it is constructed from. And LLMs do not. > "But it looks like reasoning to me" My condolences. You should go see a doctor about your inability to count the number of 'R
3.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
It's called absurd not because it's not understood, or because there aren't technical counterarguments to be made. It's called absurd because it does not deserve to be humoured the effort of writing out those arguments.
4.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> The employer sets the terms of the interview. If you don’t like them, don’t apply. What you're missing here is that this is an individual's answer to a systemic problem. You don't apply when it's _one_ obnoxious emp
5.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
I'm sorry but what the fuck is this product pitch? Anyone who's done any kind of substantial document research knows that it's a NIGHTMARE of chasing loose ends & citogenesis. Trusting an LLM to critically evaluate ever
6.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> It isn't banned Yet. They have clearly voiced their desire for this. > it just won't be state funded. This isn't just "The government is not funding research into this", this is the government maintaining a
7.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
In what sense? The "Mugging" going on is that "AI safety" folks proclaim that AI might have an "extinction risk" or infinite-negative outcome. And they proclaim that therefore, we should be devoting considerabl
8.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> It feels like they always anthropomorphize AI as some sort of "God". It's not like that. It is that. They're playing Pascal's Wager against an imaginary future god. The most maddening part is that the obvio
9.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> The same argument applies to essentially all technology, like a computer. Why yes, it does. Even setting aside that most AI hype: Yes, automation is in fact quite sinister if you do not go out of your way to deal with the downsides. Pu
10.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
This is a hilarious claim given that none of the current action is going through the legislative path, and the tech billionaires freely bend the knee to Trump even before the inauguration. What's even the material point here? That &quo
11.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Your stereotypes belie a lack of familiarity with researchers I was referencing what the current Trump administration deems "meritocratic" and seeks to "return" to, their policy changes are in direct response and op
12.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Look at Albania for why this is bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_schemes_in_Albania Crypto is different from things like housing (where the "bubble" is merely artificially restricted supply driving
13.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Sure you can say that crypto is only bubble, but that doesn't really add any information. The bubble can't be "inflating" since there's no ratio to a non-bubble version. The core point is that there is (essenti
14.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
>Why should somebody researching e.g. fusion for the Department of Energy also need to create a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan, to even apply? Why? Because a homogenous culture of researchers is less effective. Be
15.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> we do KYC And what then, is stopping governments from simply demanding you hand over a list of your customers? They will seek to enforce those currency controls you are subverting. Your entire sales pitch here is based on a lack of tra
16.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Firstly, do note that the original text is talking about use of AI, this one line doesn't seem to be about banning AI so much as banning a use . Secondly: The implied basis here is that AI isn't just a product, it's also
17.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Their way of squaring this circle has always been to whine about "AI safety". (the cultish doomsday shit, not actual harms from AI) Sam Altman will proclaim that he alone is qualified to build AI and that everyone else should be t
18.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> (Don’t answer that.) It is nevertheless important to say out loud: > Why is getting people to use AI seen as a good in itself? Because user counts pump up the stock price. And that is all AI has. Whether you believe the claims that
19.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
He, and most of the executives like him, are just being idiots about this particular thing. Our field is notoriously hard to quantify in terms of productivity. The metrics (Lines of Code, Velocity, etc) are all garbage. Rather than learning
20.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Some states (CA, NY, IL, WA, OR come to mind) Yes. My concern is the opposite here; A lot of red states are gleefully following every whim of the Trump Administration, and we can expect their state-level equivalent rules (insofar they
21.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
What the claimed motivation is does not matter; the order is gone in it's entirity now. Frankly, it's just conservatives using "affirmative action" as a buzzword, because it really doesn't describe affirmative actio
22.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
If you're a federal contractor: Congratulations you can now be discriminated against on the grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin" And as a reminder to the lurkers who
23.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Much in the same way you are allowed to criticize Putin in Russia. So long as you do it in a sound proofed room.
24.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> because say the CEO of a company is friendly to the President. "Engaging in political censorship of their platform in favour of the President" is a little more than being "friendly". Free Speech in the US is dying.
25.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> What if instead it was possible to feed the bots clearly damaging and harmfull content? With all respect, you're completely misunderstanding the scope of AI companies' misbehaviour. These scrapers already gleefully chow down
26.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> (Otherwise we'd just be doing that already.) Not quite what the original commenter meant but: WE ARE. A major consequence of this reckless AI scraping is that it turbocharged the move away from the web and into closed ecosystems l
27.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Like what happens with publicly-owned TV Which is bad ... why exactly? Public TV largely works. Meanwhile, existing privately owned social media & news in the US falling into the hands of single billionaires is showing itself to ha
28.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> The added bonus of replacing laid off tech staff with overseas contractors is another morale booster. Woah, woah, they're not overseas, they're "Virtual Employees" now. You're not supposed to look behind the cu
29.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performative in the first place. Keep in mind that these statements are made to pander to the incoming president. The implication that
30.
by ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Inference is basically getting an 10x cheaper per year! You're gonna need some good citations for that. There's a big difference between companies saying "The inference costs on our service are down" and the infer

More ›