BobbyJo

6 ms·

1.
by BobbyJo 4d ago
> This has been the case for around 2 years now, more reliably - a year. I have to disagree with this pretty strongly. Opus 4.5 needed a lot of handholding not to work itself into a corner pretty quickly. Fable I basically never need to
2.
by BobbyJo 4d ago
"Can be used as a weapon" applies to nearly everything, and ceases to have any meaning. Even on a tank, they aren't considered a weapon, only the whole take together is the weapon, or the cannon alone.
3.
by BobbyJo 6d ago
I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you are making the claim that Agent Orange was indeed a chemical weapon, I'd disagree, but I think either perspective has points.
4.
by BobbyJo 6d ago
Is your argument that the resulting birth defects were intentional? If not, I'm not sure where you're going with your response.
5.
by BobbyJo 6d ago
I'm not arguing we were the good guys in Vietnam, just that calling Agent Orange a chemical weapon is a shaky claim. Not sure why you're putting so many other words in my mouth.
6.
by BobbyJo 6d ago
> is a little pedantic, they used agent orange to kill foliage to kill people... Is a wheel a weapon because a tank uses it? I wouldn't consider the difference pedantry.
7.
by BobbyJo 6d ago
1) The US is not the only country to deploy chemical weapons. Are you forgetting all of WW1? It's the whole reason chemical weapons are a no-no now. 2) The US didn't use chemicals weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange was used to kill
8.
by BobbyJo 10d ago
> We must pursue advancements in AI to protect us against advancements in AI Is this not true of technology as a whole? Very little of technology's breadth exists at the human interface. Most of it is made specifically to interface
9.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
Oh, you're someone else. Now I'm just confused why you responded to my question that was directed at someone else.
10.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
PPP is what matters financially, add on ethnic homogeny and familial presence in a culture that values both and staying becomes a lot more compelling.
11.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
You can't ignore the impact of China also becoming a better place to live as well. China is a different place no than it was 20 years ago, and the need to go overseas anywhere is probably felt less today than back then.
12.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage? That's plainly false, as that's just no
13.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
The arguments can be the same but have entirely different hidden variables that make it fine to use the argument in one context and not the other. Also, this ignores that the government works for citizens, no matter their race. Promoting ra
14.
by BobbyJo 21d ago
Is your argument that the world economy is running so close to theoretical maximum efficiency that AI can't improve it?
15.
by BobbyJo 22d ago
I got a 32gb M4 macbook air with the lower CPU core count, right before things got stupid. Can't even buy that skew now.
16.
by BobbyJo 23d ago
Only if you hold the view that AI will not lead to use using energy more efficiently.
17.
by BobbyJo 25d ago
Because they need SS and medicare, which is most spending at this point. The only choice in the last 40 years, that would have actually decreased spending, was Rand Paul, and he got crushed.
18.
by BobbyJo 25d ago
I implore you to simply talk to a few conservatives living normal lives in the real world. I am related to many and grew up in the south. I assure you, most are not nefarious. > They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Suc
19.
by BobbyJo 25d ago
That's a false dichotomy.
20.
by BobbyJo 26d ago
I use Claude and I find that it speaks in a very obfuscated manner when explaining things. It seems to make up jargon as it goes on top of spending a lot of tokens dancing around a point. I often find myself having to ask it to rephrase thi
21.
by BobbyJo 27d ago
Economic regulations affect everyone. I had to fill out a tax form because I had to resell tickets to a convert I was unable to go to. I don't feel sorry that people sending money over the border have to do the same now.
22.
by BobbyJo 28d ago
Me and a Cofounder are building something along these lines on top of K8s. The wisdom that "if give the LLM clear boundaries and you get better results" definitely holds IME, even with frontier models like fable. It's impossi
23.
by BobbyJo 29d ago
Could this be because US gov healthcare spending takes place mostly via Medicare, which is specifically for people 65+?
24.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Being weight X while gaining weight is a significantly different metabolic state than being weight X while losing weight.
25.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
> It is not pie in the sky Define "pie in the sky", because you have described the utopia that every eco-socialist has been chasing for 100 years... The problem that makes it infeasible isn't the math, or the technology, i
26.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
So, walking is worse than unemployment? I'm just asking where the ranking is coming from.
27.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
> Well of course they should be. You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even conceive of a different world. Assuming you are talking about free basic necessities: I can conceive it fine, I just also understand that conceiv
28.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
How is taking away their ability to earn money at all more humane than not giving them a car loan? I'm genuinely confused how you are ranking those two things.
29.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
If we want to stop illegal immigration, "not getting a car loan" and "harder to move money across the border" feel like the most humane ways to slow it down. Plus, the drug trade coming in from Mexico is, in fact, a huge
30.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
> Money laundering is an absurd concept. People should be free to transfer money to whoever they like, without permission. This ignores that taxes are a thing that need enforcement. Its like saying basic necessities should be free, the w

More ›