anonymous_sorry

6 ms·

1.
by anonymous_sorry 22d ago
> IBM is now just a consultancy. Except that they own Red Hat
2.
by anonymous_sorry 1mo ago
You may be weak in the face of marketing claims if you're exhausted, tired, distracted, or have insufficient understanding to question them. You fall back on a subconscious availability heuristic - "I'm always hearing about t
3.
by anonymous_sorry 2mo ago
I do mostly agree with you, but... > Creating new humans is easy If you did a survey I suspect agreement with this statement would be rather bimodal.
4.
by anonymous_sorry 2mo ago
I'm not sure if you're arguing against self-determination and for serfdom. Or just making a narrow correction to one sentence in an argument that was perhaps slightly too definitive. But obviously the key principle is about retain
5.
by anonymous_sorry 4mo ago
> ...when people ask me about learning to code. I ask them if they're ok with sitting in front of a computer for many hours. I wonder if this puts people off who shouldn't be put off. I certainly don't think I'd want
6.
by anonymous_sorry 4mo ago
Well, but there absolutely are such things as coincidences. It is obvious that coincidences are to be expected. Combinatorial mathematics actually says certain types of coincidence happen more often than we seem to expect intuitively (eg. t
7.
by anonymous_sorry 4mo ago
I think it would be be more illuminating to call it "enlightened self-interest".
8.
by anonymous_sorry 5mo ago
I don't see why it makes a difference for this purpose that you're replaying network packets or controller inputs or any other interface to the game engine. The important thing is that there is some well-defined interface. I guess
9.
by anonymous_sorry 6mo ago
The cumulative duration of these four episodes looks to be about 30 years, so about a quarter of the total time period looked at Interesting, but not quite as dramatic as I assumed from the title.
10.
by anonymous_sorry 6mo ago
But the LLM contributions would likely be ruled public domain, so AGPL may not be enforceable on these.
11.
by anonymous_sorry 6mo ago
There was a recent ruling that LLM output is inherently public domain (presumably unless it infringes some existing copyright). In which case it's not possible to use them to "reimplement everything we can as copyleft".
12.
by anonymous_sorry 7mo ago
Eggs in the UK are safe to eat raw (and I presume the EU as well [but please verify before doing so!]).
13.
by anonymous_sorry 7mo ago
I did think about this use-case as I was typing my first message. I can see it working for complex products, for functionality I only want to use once in a blue moon. If it's something I'm doing regularly, I'd rather the LLM
14.
by anonymous_sorry 7mo ago
Have you ever had a chatbot solve your problem? I don't think this has ever happened to me. As a reasonably technical user capable of using search, the only way this could really happen is if there was no web/app interface for som
15.
by anonymous_sorry 8mo ago
Your docs are probably read many more times than they are written. It might be cheaper and quicker to produce them at 90% quality, but surely the important metric is how much time it saves or costs your readers?
16.
by anonymous_sorry 9mo ago
"I apologize to the world at large for my inadvertent, naive if minor role in enabling this assault"
17.
by anonymous_sorry 9mo ago
In the same way it's better that adults are the recipients of the harms of smoking, drinking or gambling. It's still not desirable, but societies have settled upon thresholds for when people have some capacity to take responsibili
18.
by anonymous_sorry 9mo ago
Others have suggested "bullshit". A bullshitter does not care (and may not know) whether what they say is truth or fiction. A bullshitter's goal is just to be listened to and seem convincing.
19.
by anonymous_sorry 10mo ago
It's very impressive indeed. Linux goal is only for code compatibility - which makes complete sense given the libre/open source origins. If the culture is one where you expect to have access to the source code for the software yo
20.
by anonymous_sorry 11mo ago
There's an interesting asymmetry in language in this area. Jobs are "created" by a company or an industry. But they never seem to be "destroyed", instead they are "lost". If the company starts hiring again
21.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
I think just be specific - a suicidal sixteen year-old was able to discuss methods of killing himself with an LLM by prompting it to role-play a fictional scenario. No need to say he "lied" and then use an analogy of him lying to
22.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
So for me, it's not about being reductionist, but about not anthropomorphizing or using words which which may suggest an inappropriate ethical or moral dimension to interactions with a piece of software.
23.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
Mayyybe, but since the comment I objected to also used an analogy of lying to a person I felt it suggested some unwanted moral judgement (of a suicidal teenager).
24.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
I mean, for one thing, a commercial LLM exists as a product designed to make a profit. It can be improved, otherwise modified, restricted or legally terminated. And "lying" to it is not morally equivalent to lying to a human.
25.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
That's certainly a reasonable argument. Another is that this is a new and poorly understood (by the public at least) technology that giant corporations make available to minors. In ChatGPT's case, they require parental consent, al
26.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
You can't "deceive" an LLM. It's not like lying to a person. It's not a person. Using emotive, anthropomorphic language about software tool is unhelpful, in this case at least. Better to think of it as a mentally di
27.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
The historical conception of race doesn't translate simply to human genetics. There is more genetic variation within a what we might call a race than between them. And it's interesting to note that the genetic diversity of Eurasia
28.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
I was uneducated on the subject of coalition games, so looked it up. But I leaned these games are defined by a mechanic where players can form binding contracts with external enforcement/punishment. I don't see how this applies to
29.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
I think this disagreement stems from the fact that, by instinct, you think socially. When I hear the word "rational", I think of the economist's model of a individual acting to optimise their own utility. Of course in many (m
30.
by anonymous_sorry 1y ago
This page says the theory was first proposed in 2007, but I remember being told about it at university around 2003.

More ›