baobabKoodaa

6 ms·

1.
by baobabKoodaa 4d ago
You people just never stop, do you? At some point you're gonna have to look back at all the times you said "LLMs have hit a wall" and look at what the progress was since the last time you said that. Please do go ahead and rev
2.
by baobabKoodaa 4d ago
Your link is from 2013. You're intentionally using the term "Agent" to muddy the waters. Don't do that.
3.
by baobabKoodaa 4d ago
No. You don't "defet" (sic) "incorret" (sic) arguments by making up new definitions for existing words. Stop doing that.
4.
by baobabKoodaa 7d ago
the first "sentence" just seems to continue indefinitely into word salad
5.
by baobabKoodaa 8d ago
> These responses seem to me to make it abundantly clear who's telling the truth here. Since it is clear to you, can you articulate what it is? I was unable to infer "the truth" from your message.
6.
by baobabKoodaa 9d ago
The last tech job I worked at which had a bonus structure had the bonus amount set at 100 euros (not a typo).
7.
by baobabKoodaa 10d ago
Telegram is openly supportive of cyber crime. I don't think it should be labelled as terrorist organization, but it's not far from that.
8.
by baobabKoodaa 12d ago
People who disable JS are very likely to have delusions like this.
9.
by baobabKoodaa 17d ago
> "radical left" is not an accurate recitation of "anti-racist, anti-sexist" Gaslighting again. The quote was "anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism". See how you "accidentally" forgot to mention
10.
by baobabKoodaa 17d ago
Hey, I'm sorry about my other message. I tried to tell another user in this thread to go f* themselves, and I seem to have accidentally clicked the wrong "reply" link in the tree and so my message went to you instead. What yo
11.
by baobabKoodaa 17d ago
> Declaring that the State Department's language is "accurately reciting" is equating. Now you are just imagining the word "terrorism" into a sentence that does not include the word "terrorism". As a re
12.
by baobabKoodaa 19d ago
I have never equated those.
13.
by baobabKoodaa 19d ago
In this case the US State Department is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly: https://www.inventati.org/about
14.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
Your response seems to be missing the point completely. Gruber thinks "best" writing is produced by choosing the "best" word (highest scoring token) at each step. This is very clear from his writing.
15.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
You will understand if you run some LLM models with a greedy sampler that does that. The text quality begins to deteriorate rapidly. This is a very counter intuitive result so I don't blame you for not understanding until you actually
16.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
Cyberpunk dystopia vibes
17.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
So many weasel words it makes me angry
18.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
Go get successfully policed and then come back here.
19.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
No
20.
by baobabKoodaa 1mo ago
I can confirm. I saw him take the $5.
21.
by baobabKoodaa 2mo ago
Anecdotal counter example: I'm on HN and I have no idea what you're talking about.
22.
by baobabKoodaa 2mo ago
This is not the point. The point is about deterring lawsuits. The point is not about defending lawsuits. This is very clearly explained in OP.
23.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
Is fraud "more fraudulent" than non-fraud? Yes. Wtf man?
24.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
Off-ramp does exist. Stop lying.
25.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
One side says it was humor. The other side says it was not humor. Without more information we can't know if it was humor or not.
26.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
KRAZAM made a skit about this. You would like it.
27.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
Go take an algorithms 101 class. That's literally all it is: learning how to write different algorithms to do the same thing more efficiently.
28.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
> after standardization there's very little room to "develop the algorithms" because nonconformant implementations would be useless. there is A LOT OF ROOM to develop the algorithms. it seems that you are confused about wh
29.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
> ffmpeg (codec specs) if your mental model is that somebody writes codec specs and then fabrice bellard comes in and turns the specs into C, you are dead wrong. first of all, codecs are usually reverse-engineered, there is no spec. seco
30.
by baobabKoodaa 3mo ago
A few years back these used to be called "Frankenstein models"

More ›