ajkjk

4 ms·

1.
by ajkjk 5d ago
Yes, it must be a sinister act of manipulation and not what it appears to be on the tin.
2.
by ajkjk 6d ago
either one, yeah
3.
by ajkjk 6d ago
Stereotyped as less of a STEM country, probably accurately, so it seems newsworthy plus gives people hope and optimism to hear about cool inventions from there.
4.
by ajkjk 6d ago
Your mistake is parsing rhetoric as anything other than made up.
5.
by ajkjk 6d ago
You're one of those people who needs to expand their worldview, then. I live in a progressive city in North Carolina and constantly find that when people have never heard of them things that every HN reader (and probably every Bay Area
6.
by ajkjk 6d ago
Presumably a lot of it is in a better evaluation function. That is, when searching the tree, a better analysis of whether a specific position is beneficial and by how much. After all most of the tree searches do not end in checkmate, just i
7.
by ajkjk 7d ago
strongly agree except that "million-dollar business" is such a low bar these days that I might argue a larger number is needed for the point to stand. People are reacting foolishly to the word shouldn't here. It's not
8.
by ajkjk 8d ago
Made no claim that people haven't heard of ChatGPT. Said they haven't heard of OpenAI.
9.
by ajkjk 8d ago
I feel you like you cited that as an example of people knowing companies behind things and you don't realize that very many people do not know that the same company owns Facebook and Instagram... Corporate structures are things you kno
10.
by ajkjk 8d ago
No, there are people who will say "ask Chat to explain it to you" in reference to ChatGPT.
11.
by ajkjk 8d ago
I think you are wrong, but of course it's just a guess.
12.
by ajkjk 8d ago
well probably even your friends know a lot more than "most people". But walk into a random town and ask a random person and I'd wager they'll be about at what I described, on average.
13.
by ajkjk 8d ago
I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people do
14.
by ajkjk 8d ago
it is on the front page
15.
by ajkjk 8d ago
the latter (ish; it may not make a difference in any practical case)
16.
by ajkjk 8d ago
the part where they didn't want the Anthropic person credited even though they deserve credit is also particularly scummy. Corporate greed over common decency.
17.
by ajkjk 8d ago
Everybody knows it's not a sure thing, it's a question of trustworthiness. OpenAI is not trustworthy at all; this random researcher is and seems honest so far. iThe fact that people are corroborating Bubeck being a piece of shit i
18.
by ajkjk 8d ago
They keep saying 'we' and 'our' but I'm pretty sure this is an 'I' and 'my' thing.
19.
by ajkjk 9d ago
I dunno, I like math and I still think automatically solving problems is worth doing. If problem-solving is a hobby then it will still be a hobby after all this. If it's about doing things for humanity--which it often is since many tho
20.
by ajkjk 9d ago
it seems like a person could cheat by finding an open problem that's AI-solvable ahead of time (by trying many problems), and then pretend to do it for the first time in the competition. You can't verify past chat logs so make sur
21.
by ajkjk 9d ago
sorry I edited my comment because I wasn't quite sure what I meant by that either. I am too sleepy. But, I disagree. partial functions B->A are just a superset of functions B->A, so requiring g to be partial is just relaxing a re
22.
by ajkjk 9d ago
I think a slightly better fix is to change definitions to allow g = { (1, {}) } to be regarded as a left-inverse to g, that is, to allow left-inverses to be partial functions, rather than full functions. The definition still requires they
23.
by ajkjk 10d ago
that's not really how eigenvalues work... they specifically also model the case where the result keeps changing exponentially.
24.
by ajkjk 10d ago
well I didn't say anything about needing complex structure or sounding impressive. But I don't like it. It trivializes the expression of emotion in a way I don't like and I don't think people should emulate. It feels lik
25.
by ajkjk 10d ago
this reads like a worksheet for eight year olds teaching them how to put their feelings into words
26.
by ajkjk 11d ago
it's a real shame that this sort of environment isn't found everywhere for free. I'm pretty sure the people who would thrive in it are out there and it's just a coordination problem. a lot of people love their jobs becau
27.
by ajkjk 12d ago
"Aiding and Abetting" crime is also a crime. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
28.
by ajkjk 12d ago
we really do not want to engineer a system in which using bugs to make money is considered economically legitimate activity. It is still crime. The main reason to report bugs and get the bounties for doing so is still because it makes the w
29.
by ajkjk 13d ago
the fact that they are sometimes communicated by email doesn't mean that the best way to communicate them is by email. Personal correspondence references are specifically terrible as references since you can't go read them...
30.
by ajkjk 14d ago
Dunno who you're arguing with, I didn't say they didn't produce anything of value. I said they aren't producing scientific papers. Conversations are not like papers. The scientists have conversations (sometimes on mailin

More ›