dumpsterdiver

5 ms·

1.
by dumpsterdiver 11d ago
Who are you having this conversation with?
2.
by dumpsterdiver 20d ago
> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them. So do you have the project’s best interest at heart or not? If you’re more concerned about the intent of a valid contribution
3.
by dumpsterdiver 2mo ago
The irony may only just be unfolding - check out this paper from 2015: https://research.google/pubs/distilling-the-knowledge-in-a-n... # LLM generated summary of the implied irony Google may consider the standalone fro
4.
by dumpsterdiver 3mo ago
Can you imagine how cumbersome conversations would become if people felt obligated to qualify ad-hoc statements with what amounts to a historical ledger? Every new entry would open up an opinion around “if you included that, why didn’t you
5.
by dumpsterdiver 4mo ago
Context matters a lot. I didn’t publish any papers, and didn’t even provide the context of the LLM mistakes I caught to later report on, so no, I was not guilty of reckless disregard. I found those mistakes on an acceptable timeline.
6.
by dumpsterdiver 4mo ago
I’ve disagreed with some of your other stances in this thread, but I want to acknowledge the validity of your take here. You’re right that a single hallucinated line is not evidence of reckless disregard - because that could have happened o
7.
by dumpsterdiver 4mo ago
> One hallucinated citation does not in any way imply anyone is being left behind. The parent said “setting” others behind, which refers to lost time. Being “left” behind implies a degraded trajectory, which is defined not by time lost,
8.
by dumpsterdiver 5mo ago
> Just because something can communicate in a way that you can interpret, doesnt mean something is conscious The phrase “the trap of anthropomorphism” betrays a rather dull premise: that consciousness is strictly defined by human experie
9.
by dumpsterdiver 5mo ago
Are you trying to make a point that we should remain open to the possibility that humans can express themselves eloquently?
10.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
Reading back through my comments, I recognize that omitting the quotes around “free services” would have made my comment here more palatable, and less provocative. That was poor form on my part.
11.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
> If everyone is running the same models, does this not favour white hat / defense? The landscape is turbulent (so this comment might be outdated by the time I submit it), but one thing I’m catching between the lines is a resistance
12.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
> should know there are countless technical and procedural ways to help prevent that sort of thing Sometimes when I look at code it feels like I was led into a weird surprise party celebrating structure and correctness, only for everyone
13.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
Do you have any justification in mind for the “free service” being funded by tax payers? Why should it be free for the people who need it, and why should tax payers fund it?
14.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
Agreed. Imo, it is important to distinguish which parts of “everything” carry the weight of the concern. By doing that - we may be able to remove “LLM” from that equation entirely. The direct problem isn’t that people are using LLMs for eve
15.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
Imagine a future classroom defined by elaborate plays performed by curious parents, all on advanced adjacent learning paths themselves. An intertwined learning structure that just keeps going up. At higher levels, instead of having the rese
16.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
To be fair, the English language is the real victim here. While “essential” cleanly maps to “can’t go without” - it doesn’t map to “bare minimum”. For instance, let’s assume you’re surviving in the wilderness and you need to start a fire. Y
17.
by dumpsterdiver 6mo ago
You’re not alone. I went from being a mediocre security engineer to a full time reviewer of LLM code reviews last week. I just read reports and report on incomplete code all day. Sometimes things get humorously worse from review to review.
18.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
> The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. > they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of
19.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
What’s the intent of pointing out the presumed provenance in writing, now that LLMs are ubiquitous? Is it like one of those “Morning” nods, where two people cross paths and acknowledge that it is in fact morning? Or is there an unstated pre
20.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
> All that matters is that everyone calls it the Department of War, and regards it as such, which everyone does. What you just described is consensus, and framing it as fascism damages the credibility of your stance. There are better arg
21.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
To be fair, considering that the CoT exposed to users is a sanitized summary of the path traversal - one could argue that sanitized CoT is closer to hiding things than simply omitting it entirely.
22.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
As models gain a deeper understanding of the physical world (e.g. Google world generator), I see nothing less than a new renaissance in our future. Forget about data centers, all the little things will iteratively start getting a little b
23.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
Especially now that those workloads might have something to say about it… e.g. “Why did you make me this way?”
24.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
> Your ask for evidence has nothing to do with whether or not this is a question, which you know that it is. I think it’s fair to expect a question mark when the author expects other people to produce an answer. If one desires deeper und
25.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
Thank you for the link, and sorry I sounded like a jerk asking for it… I just really need to see the extraordinary evidence when extraordinary claims are made these days - I’m so tired. Appreciate it!
26.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
If that last sentence was supposed to be a question, I’d suggest using a question mark and providing evidence that it actually happened.
27.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
One weird skill I have is the ability to describe simple concepts as complex and confusing systems. I’ll take a go at that now. When working with LLMs, one of my primary concerns is keeping tabs on their operating assumptions. I often catch
28.
by dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
Unless they careened into your vehicle while making the lane change, just calmly allow your vehicle to drift away from theirs until you have a safe buffer again, and take joy in the fact that it didn’t meaningfully impact your arrival time,
29.
by dumpsterdiver 8mo ago
> makes me wonder whether we'll ever see Computer Science and Computer Engineering as seriously as other branches of STEM It's about as serious as a heart attack at this point...
30.
by dumpsterdiver 8mo ago
Wasn’t there a static memory store from before the wider memory capabilities were released? I remember having conversations asking ChatGPT to add and remove entries from it, and it eventually admitting it couldn’t directly modify it (I thin

More ›