Uhhrrr

7 ms·

1.
by Uhhrrr 13d ago
Populace
2.
by Uhhrrr 21d ago
No. If OpenAI were being responsible and not criminally negligent, at the top of page 1 of the runbook would be "don't connect this to the actual Internet, even if the agent says Please."
3.
by Uhhrrr 24d ago
Hoy, cocky!
4.
by Uhhrrr 2mo ago
Yes! Eclectic, and if you text or call, a human will often respond.
5.
by Uhhrrr 2mo ago
In the first paragraph, "The goal isn't rigor, it's intuition that survives contact with real systems".
6.
by Uhhrrr 2mo ago
Yes, they reversed course after the court packing threat.
7.
by Uhhrrr 3mo ago
Before the court packing threat, they were limiting the federal government's power to regulate commerce within states. Which is a power it doesn't actually have.
8.
by Uhhrrr 3mo ago
Why were no examples given?
9.
by Uhhrrr 3mo ago
Did you read the paper? Are there assumptions with which you disagree?
10.
by Uhhrrr 3mo ago
I should mention that the Remain advocate estimates of 3.6-6.0 were for a time frame of two years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analy...
11.
by Uhhrrr 3mo ago
For comparison, Remain advocates predicted a fall in GDP of 3.6-6.0%: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/brexit-would-put-our-...
12.
by Uhhrrr 4mo ago
Looking again at the article, I see that there are about 5 paragraphs about Railway and 30 about the agent (and, again, zero reflection about their own culpability).
13.
by Uhhrrr 4mo ago
This meta-analysis puts it at 67%: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/... What data have you seen which doesn't support it?
14.
by Uhhrrr 4mo ago
If you look at the article, its title is, "An AI agent deleted our production database. It confessed in writing." To me this seems to be pretty clearly focusing on the AI agent. Then if you read the article, it attributes a lot of
15.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
The reason is clearly "signaling", because they certainly weren't furthering discussion.
16.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
If you actually follow the links you posted, you will see that he didn't create a meme coin and didn't rug pull it. Someone else made the coin and set it up so he got transfer fees.
17.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
I have only ever gotten thanks and net positive points for posting archive links.
18.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
The software is never accountable, so the human running it is always accountable.
19.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
Ok, I went and looked at his last 50 or so tweets. I didn't see anything that supports what you are saying.
20.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
That is a good example of "dumb shit". No one believes Musk is a Nazi, but they try to make hay with it anyway.
21.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
The very first clip is video of Cory Booker.
22.
by Uhhrrr 5mo ago
The last couple sentences tie things up really nicely.
23.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
If you don't review what the product does, you are irresponsible for the product.
24.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
Put an ORM in your private repo which randomly 1% of the time calls DROP TABLE.
25.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
When I read SoaNM, I quickly realized that it had been used as a style guide for several later books, and most long-form tech articles in Wired, the NYT, etc.
26.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
Yes, because trusting LLM output is a great way to be in the bottom x%.
27.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
In this case you would replace the human.
28.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
The humans are not scapegoats, because they are capable of taking on responsibility. There is a point to using LLMs. They can save time by doing a first pass. But when they do the last pass, disasters will follow.
29.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
Yes, of course, and the company which removes human experts should expect things to fail in the manner that things usually fail when you remove your internal experts.
30.
by Uhhrrr 6mo ago
The two errors, then, were that the LLM hallucinated something, and that a human trusted the LLM without reasoning about its answer. The fix for this common pattern is to reason about LLM outputs before making use of them.

More ›