davorak

6 ms·

1.
by davorak 3d ago
From "Why are AI agents lying, cheating and coordinating?" "One note on wording. Below, I write that these systems “seek” or “try” things. This is shorthand for a mechanism rather than a claim about consciousness or human-lik
2.
by davorak 3mo ago
It can be hosted in multiple locations. I guess if the github UI becomes critical to their continued development or PR then they expose themselves to a potential rug pull by github/microsoft. I do not know much about the project so I c
3.
by davorak 4mo ago
> Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with. This can be a real argument and conversation but we would need to know what {x} is and the causal chain that leads the world to be better after Meta leav
4.
by davorak 4mo ago
Open ai and similar companies could open the doors to academic researchers to figure out the stats of help vs harm. It is not going to be a short term and perhaps not long term profit center though.
5.
by davorak 4mo ago
> I don't buy that chatGPT is actually doing these users any harm. For me to buy this as true I would expect that those people would be as well off or as bad off if chatGPT was in their life or not. I expect that some people are wor
6.
by davorak 5mo ago
Extra time commitment, and therefor missing some sleep, can start before the baby is born.
7.
by davorak 6mo ago
> adequately explained by stupidity What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.
8.
by davorak 6mo ago
I have a CO2 detector at home and bought some for family members, but I have never had a portable one so they stay at home. Some of the high CO2 ppm numbers in the article make me want to double check them. My vague understanding form read
9.
by davorak 6mo ago
> In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic I learned that we can estimate our level of risk by checking the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, because when infected people breathe out virus aerosols, they also breathe out CO2.
10.
by davorak 6mo ago
> I didn't see that anywhere in the text... You are right it is hard to use it for anything else though given the constraints. > An operator that receives a signal in accordance with 20this Section shall use that signal to comply
11.
by davorak 6mo ago
> The point is that you can't just externalize age verification and expect that data to never be sent to facebook facebook and similar social media companies have a ton of ways to get peoples age and or to narrow it down. > eithe
12.
by davorak 6mo ago
> Now that you know that facebook isn't pushing this law to protect anyone's anonymity why do you think they're doing it? My comment was not about what I knew/know about facebook or not. I was answering the question o
13.
by davorak 6mo ago
Unlike the California law, I seemed to be in the minority in this opinion, this one does seem to require programs like grep to ask for a users age bracket. > (b) An operator shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from a
14.
by davorak 6mo ago
It gives the parents the tools to age restrict things, but does not require parents to use them or use them well.
15.
by davorak 6mo ago
> Why? I think that main goal would be to keep the ability to have accounts be anonymous or pseudo anonymous. If social mean company has to verify an accounts age themselves they then have to use some for of official government identific
16.
by davorak 6mo ago
> trusted 3rd party service So we have to pay some 3rd party service to hoard information about Children? Why we want to set that up? Why would we want to take that power from the parents and give it to some company?
17.
by davorak 6mo ago
Does the technology already exist? Things are almost never only a tech issue alone. That does not mean tech can not help, even if the tech that would help is currently impractical. What is impractical now though may not be in 10, 20, 50
18.
by davorak 6mo ago
> You can’t serve up intentionally stale information without inviting legal repercussions. > These are being revised and updated right up until the point they are released to provide the most accurate reporting possible. > You grav
19.
by davorak 6mo ago
> it requires substantial interpretation of things that the database does not and cannot contain. Do you have examples? This seems like something that is a solvable problem, and from the outside it can seem like it is only about not be
20.
by davorak 6mo ago
> Nobody is going to stop using grammarly extensions to post to HN, nobody is going to be able to detect its usage. I do not think the new rules or for this use case or at least not target at them. None of the examples I looked at from D
21.
by davorak 6mo ago
Historically, like 10-20 years ago, libertarian would be staunchly pro privacy. Is this no longer the case? If libertarians have dropped this stance, since it is so close to what was the core beliefs, I really have no mental model of the p
22.
by davorak 6mo ago
Dang's search is much more clear cut and I think that is going to be better guide to what the enforcement will look like. Looking at your search though I think we have to exclude today or at least this thread to get a fair look how ll
23.
by davorak 6mo ago
One example of voice is of retreading old ground over and over, taking a long time to give evidence or get to the point. Content expressed with this voice is hard to extract from the text. Another voice might add citations to every little
24.
by davorak 6mo ago
As of this comment which ones are you finding wrong? 5 of the first 7 are confessed ai users, the other 2 look like ai to me too.
25.
by davorak 6mo ago
> Where does the line fall? For now I would argue when ai edits for you instead of helping you edit. Take a look at the examples that Dang posted if you have not yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 The fi
26.
by davorak 6mo ago
The typical problem with trying to create clear standards with no spirit of the law is that it never matches the intentions with the 1st, 2nd, etc iterations of developing the clear standards. At least when trying to deal with something nu
27.
by davorak 6mo ago
> HN has always been a spirit-of-the-law place, and—contrary to the "technically correct is the best correct" mentality that many of us share—we consciously resist the temptation to make them too precise. That is from dang&#x27
28.
by davorak 6mo ago
> If that's the case why would somebody who has good ideas but poor expressive capability bother posting here if their comments are just going to get ignored over relatively vapid comments that are grammatically correct? The main pr
29.
by davorak 6mo ago
If it never gets in the way of the humans communicate it probably won't be an issue. That is the reading I have of the rule and Dang's comments > HN is for conversation between humans. If it is enhancing that instead of detrac
30.
by davorak 6mo ago
Are you up for sharing details? > I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance. Mostly I think the push back is about ai assistance in its current form. It can get in the way of communicating rather than assisting. The co

More ›