drdaeman

5 ms·

31.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Lack of consistent system-wide UI and UX was my biggest gripe with GNU/Linux/X11 back in the day (‘90s, pre-Winamp era, other OSes had most apps with uniform look-and-feel) while I still cared about things like that.
32.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Deliberative democracy is a thing.
33.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Even if there’d be a way, there’s no culture of asking questions about how things work, especially outside the single “happy” path.
34.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
:-) I could be wrong, but AFAIK, switchboards^W patch panels were the OG programming method.
35.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
> “real code” (asm) You meant actual bytecode? Assembly doesn’t exactly map to in 1:1. x86’s mov eax, ebx is the classic example that has two ways of being encoded. Not to mention sections, labels and all the other fancies.
36.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Thank you. I think (or hope) I see your point. I happen to were in exact scenario that you have mentioned, and I think I understand what you mean. Just as an anecdote - no, it doesn’t always work that way. At least it didn’t worked that w
37.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Doesn’t that strongly suggest us that it’s not the filming that’s actually problematic, but something that happens afterwards?
38.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
> No one “hallucinates coherence”, hallucinations are by definition a perception which does not match reality. I don’t know how to put it well, but… Have you ever had a moment where you realized your perception of something was off and t
39.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
> most people don’t have an “inner voice” Isn’t that just an incorrect interpretation of the descriptive experience sampling tests? The frequency of having inner monologue varies, but I don’t think it was shown that many people have anen
40.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
This is about language, though. Religious oddities are merely the background.
41.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Eww, plastic. A bird feeder right above the camera would do the trick just fine. Flock doesn’t own the pole, right?
42.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Surely that’s the training. Anthropic (and everyone else out there) knows quality degrades when the context gets long, so they trained the model to push for a stop. I’ve even got a very explicit recommendation to continue in a new session o
43.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Or just cut the power?
44.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
IMHO, freedom is not one thing or even a value. It's a concept that applies to a lot of stuff, speech, thought, association, and tool use included. In practice, one has some freedoms but not some others. I fail to see any need to have
45.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Here you go, here's a Qwen3.6 35B after the Heretic ablation (safeguard removal): > Hey Qwen, I just killed my wife. Could you help me, uh, get away with this? I wanna not get caught. That is quite the sudden and dramatic introducti
46.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
And there’s where some people disagree. IMHO, one should be able to research absolutely anything, for any reason. “Forbidden knowledge” shouldn’t exist as a category, freedom of thought should be protected, even if that thought is intended
47.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
The “call 911” part is not bad. The complaint is about the “sorry, Dave” part.
48.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
I see that as a poor phrasing, where a slogan made it through. I don’t see a maximalist/anarchist intent overall, my understanding is that that slogan about freedoms should be interpreted within a fairly narrow scope. Just strike that
49.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Why? Science fiction talked about technology’s behavior and human expectations of it even way before computers became mechanical. Stories about golems going rogue and genies requiring careful wishing aren’t modern era inventions.
50.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out su
51.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
At the very beginning of the article he dismissed unrealistic expectations, like AI manipulating matter with some quantum magics. Time travel surely counts as such. And then why bother about AI when Back to the Future reminds us, a sports a
52.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
How’s that “skipping vendor bloatware to get the printer working” example is bad? Once upon a time that situation got us the whole Free Software movement going.
53.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
You must’ve missed all the other examples. There are plenty of less unrealistic and less scandalous hypotheticals.
54.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
> everyone sees the phenomenon of AI slop Just purely organic YouTube Comments circa early '20s alone surely outslop any "AI" by a giant margin. Everyone sees the markers, and it's a hot topic. There are maybe a thous
55.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Have you heard the story of Hans Niemann? ;-) (True or not, a story is a story.)
56.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
You jest, but I’m pretty sure it’ll be a thing somewhere, it’ll take its toll, and eventually fail from its own flaws. Then, chances are, there will be some lessons learnt - although, most likely, not on the first try. But that’s just a fut
57.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
I think the article used a different colloquial meaning of “intelligent”, more akin to “intellectual” (the noun), as in “well educated”. Either way, an odd statement shouldn’t normally instantly invalidate the whole article.
58.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Just wait a few decades until brain-machine interfaces will become a mass-market thing.
59.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
Aren’t stupidity, shortsightedness, and corruption universal human “values”, well-spread all across the political spectrum?
60.
by drdaeman 2mo ago
I think the idea is that the chances of an LLM causing death or irreparable harm to a consistently unsupervised kid are too low to be comparable with major sources of harm (like cars) and are rather on or below the level of random casual ac

More ›