retsibsi

5 ms·

1.
by retsibsi 4d ago
> If the model is nothing more than the sum of its training data and regime, then the company is responsible for its behaviour. What stops the company from being responsible regardless? They created this entity, it's running on serv
2.
by retsibsi 6d ago
On my read they are criticising the reporter, not the child. We definitely should be careful, in situations like this, not to be nasty to the kids involved. But I think we should still be allowed to be upset by bullshit, and strongly critic
3.
by retsibsi 7d ago
> Please tell me that this is a grossly exaggerated parody, and that the tools don’t write like this, or do so many ridiculous things It's a pisstake, but (in the bits I read, and based on my own personal experience) the writing s
4.
by retsibsi 8d ago
I appreciate that he responded with (seeming) openness and detail, rather than just posting some pithy insult or whatever would have won him the twitter battle, but this part feels like serious gaslighting or, at best, self-delusion: > G
5.
by retsibsi 8d ago
This is helped along by the number of people willing to cynically offer up a blurb, or even a glowing review, to something mediocre or seriously flawed that they may not even have read. I'm sure the blurbers think they're just doi
6.
by retsibsi 8d ago
> It's at least a bit of psychosis I know semantic shift is inevitable, but can we put the brakes on this one at least a little? This doesn't even connect to the original meaning.
7.
by retsibsi 9d ago
Maybe I misunderstand the analogy, but in this scenario it seems that the orphan crushing facility's donations to the orphanage are an unalloyed good. Their motives are bad, and they are bad, but their donations to the orphanage are ca
8.
by retsibsi 9d ago
I don't like that phrase either, but do you have a direct replacement? Language usage tends toward efficiency, and sometimes I want to speak generally rather than specifically, and so if my options for conveying the idea 'read boo
9.
by retsibsi 11d ago
On desktop, it's basically forced heavy smoothscrolling, with an attempt to replicate real motion by gradually slowing to a stop. Horribly laggy for those of us sensitive to such things.
10.
by retsibsi 12d ago
I'm one of today's lucky 10,000, so I'm glad it was linked here (and would happily read a defence of the language from one of those previous discussions, too). When the criticisms relate to correctness bugs, I don't thin
11.
by retsibsi 13d ago
I think it's just that in the past, you would need X free time, Y motivation level, and Z skill level (partly tradeable for X and Y) to create something like this, and now all of those values are smaller. So it's 'economics&#
12.
by retsibsi 13d ago
Makes sense, but is it relevant to the upthread claim that "All provable models (theories, explanations) that we have, or could have, are by definition wrong or incomplete"? (Not being rhetorical and snide here, I'm curious a
13.
by retsibsi 13d ago
> The map has to be become the territory for genuinely perfect accuracy. Why couldn't the territory be losslessly compressible?
14.
by retsibsi 13d ago
Studies show that your concentration remains sharper if your visual processing system is jarred out of its complacency at frequent, semi-random intervals, preventing you from lapsing into a low-effort 'skim-reading' mindset. It&#x
15.
by retsibsi 14d ago
> while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen Can you give some examples of predictions he got roughly right where this applies? (Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested, because this is the key for me when thinki
16.
by retsibsi 14d ago
> We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people makin
17.
by retsibsi 14d ago
Isn't that pretty much his whole thing, confidently telling us what will happen? Of course his reputation should suffer if his predictions are wrong, as should those of the others whose correctness : confidence ratio is too low. (But i
18.
by retsibsi 15d ago
Of course you don't need to keep trying until you think it's good. But if you haven't found anything it's good at, and meanwhile lots of smart and seemingly-honest people are saying they've found it to be very goo
19.
by retsibsi 15d ago
Yeah, but that applies to the argument in the original comment too. It's supposedly directed at someone who denies we're in an AI bubble, telling them to put their money where their mouth is. But then suddenly they're suppose
20.
by retsibsi 17d ago
> Now the entire world has a calculator in their pocket, and all that wrote memorization not only made me hate math as a child, it was a giant waste of time. I dunno, I think this example kind of works in the opposite direction. If we&#x
21.
by retsibsi 20d ago
Of course it's hard to define. That doesn't mean every definition is valid. And often this comes up in the context of the Hard Problem, where a definition is clearly inadequate (dodging the problem and talking about something else
22.
by retsibsi 20d ago
Sadly, many philosophers, including some who are highly respected, make similar mistakes / play similar games. (Consciousness is inaccessible from the outside, which is epistemologically inconvenient... so how about we pretend it doesn
23.
by retsibsi 24d ago
I don't know; I think people in general are just not great at this. Successful people tend to underrate luck and overrate the brilliance of their own decisions, but the rest of us are prone to either reversing that and blaming everyone
24.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
How many long-unsolved maths problems have you solved? Or are you perhaps defining true intelligence as that which computers do not have (yet)?
25.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
From interviews with successful creative types, that seems to be a common theme. Often, early on in their careers, they were basically trying to copy their influences, but the copy was imperfect in an interesting way. (Also, often they&#x27
26.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
> very obviously what is happening I don't think this is obvious at all. There's enough competition that this would at least arguably be a silly, self-destructive approach. And it's not like it's the only plausible ex
27.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
I independently reached the same conclusion, and I think we must be right, because the thing I thought I might have missed was some way in which the shoes/clothes are actually relevant and rule out one of those orderings. But our answe
28.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
If you haven't played since childhood, this might not matter to you, but I never got on with the games from the 3rd generation ( https://worms.fandom.com/wiki/Third_Generation ) and beyond because the physics are di
29.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
Thanks, I think I understand your point better now. In this case, though, you are wrong about both my intentions and the relative practical value of the two approaches (to me). I'm not doing this to take creative or intellectual credit
30.
by retsibsi 1mo ago
I can imagine a future where it might make sense. Right now, though, it would make for a far worse experience, and wouldn't even really be practically possible. Both of those examples were real ones. The crossword app runs on my phone,

More ›