anthonyrstevens

5 ms·

1.
by anthonyrstevens 5d ago
Oh goodness. This is on HN?
2.
by anthonyrstevens 5d ago
Magic 8-Ball says: SIGNS POINT TO YES
3.
by anthonyrstevens 5d ago
If the AI haters would avoid AI articles and stop adding useless, unrelated "slop!" and "just text prediction!" comments, HN would be a much better place IMHO.
4.
by anthonyrstevens 5d ago
How many "AnslopicNNN" accounts do you have?
5.
by anthonyrstevens 5d ago
>> How about some less skimming of the text before you jump the contrarian gun? Evergreen comment TBH
6.
by anthonyrstevens 6d ago
This is such an uncharitable (and, in my opinion, incorrect) take
7.
by anthonyrstevens 6d ago
>> They generate text Can we retire this incorrect meme please
8.
by anthonyrstevens 6d ago
>> all of the experts refuse to share their data What? So much research is being generated around this topic. Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with it.
9.
by anthonyrstevens 6d ago
Technically correct is the best kind of correct?
10.
by anthonyrstevens 6d ago
Microsoft certainly did throw Apple a $150MM lifeline that was sorely needed, else they were looking at bankruptcy within weeks. I would say that "saved" them. AND yes, both companies benefited.
11.
by anthonyrstevens 7d ago
I'm going to say 2050 in the United States; 2040 in some conflict zone.
12.
by anthonyrstevens 7d ago
I saw the GP as a snarky riposte against the doomerism of the anti-AI crowd. Technology has been augmenting or replacing human work for as long as the first slab of rock was shoved up an inclined plane (wedge) and popped into its spot in th
13.
by anthonyrstevens 7d ago
This is needlessly combative and insulting.
14.
by anthonyrstevens 8d ago
This does not strike me as true at all. Nobody's crowing about the verbosity of their AI-generated code. Rather, it seems to me they're impressed by the functionality or capabilities relative to time/cost.
15.
by anthonyrstevens 8d ago
Because sequential comparison is part of the point of doing them?
16.
by anthonyrstevens 8d ago
I think you're confusing a recurrence relationship with recursive execution. Until AI has control over its inputs (including physical inputs - compute hardware, etc.) it's not quite RSI. We'll get there. They'll get ther
17.
by anthonyrstevens 8d ago
Magic 8-Ball says: VERY DOUBTFUL
18.
by anthonyrstevens 12d ago
Is the Turing test focused, perhaps unnecessarily, on deciding how well a computer "thinks like a human"? Should we expand our universe of possibilities to admit that there might be AI that is generally intelligent, but which has
19.
by anthonyrstevens 12d ago
I don't think this is true.
20.
by anthonyrstevens 12d ago
Frontier models can do this.
21.
by anthonyrstevens 12d ago
This. People treat "token prediction" dismissively, as if it were a limit and not a foundational skill. Human brains do "token prediction" in all sorts of contexts.
22.
by anthonyrstevens 13d ago
"Truth can be complicated and difficult, so I like to listen to people who tell me comforting distortions." This attitude is at the root of many of the world's problems, IMHO
23.
by anthonyrstevens 13d ago
Oh my goodness. Is this really a good-faith question?
24.
by anthonyrstevens 13d ago
The point of this thread/discussion is not simply to render a snap uninformed judgement on the (made-up, reductionist) premise of "technology bad, old things good".
25.
by anthonyrstevens 14d ago
That 63 score is for Max. The OP specified medium.
26.
by anthonyrstevens 15d ago
Aren't you so clever. Go to Reddit.
27.
by anthonyrstevens 15d ago
How is it a lie?
28.
by anthonyrstevens 15d ago
People love to complain, particularly if being anti-AI is a big part of their identity.
29.
by anthonyrstevens 15d ago
Are you going to post the same comment on every AI article on HN? How is this useful to the discussion?
30.
by anthonyrstevens 15d ago
Yes, some people will complain about anything (and everything) related to AI. And relentlessly push the most negative interpretation of any datum.

More ›