semiquaver

6 ms·

1.
by semiquaver 3d ago
It’s not even edited, pangram rates it 100% bot-authored.
2.
by semiquaver 4d ago
Agreed. I’ve come to believe that the video’s benefit from bringing awareness to the issue is outweighed by how misleading it is. Massive amounts of the video were “we hacked the TV and made it do [bad thing]” and was reported as “LG TVs do
3.
by semiquaver 4d ago
Obvious claude slop; 100% bot authored according to pangram
4.
by semiquaver 5d ago
Just another instance of the bitter lesson. The model itself knows how to be clever and conserve tokens in command output by using shell primitives and as the models get smarter they get better at anticipating large output and defensively
5.
by semiquaver 6d ago
Who’s making easy jokes about biological weapons?
6.
by semiquaver 6d ago
This looks unambiguous to me: > Forgejo does not accept works of authorship (code, documentation, etc.) either partially or completely generated by AI due to legal uncertainties.
7.
by semiquaver 6d ago
In case anyone from X is reading this, please fix your “open in app” nag screen. For several weeks now, clicking it in iOS opens the App Store entry for X rather than the app, even when you have the app installed.
8.
by semiquaver 8d ago
If OpenAI doesn’t claim the millennium prize for this, who gets it? No one?
9.
by semiquaver 8d ago
It’s perfectly legal to put a cellular modem in a TV, but not without disclosing that to the FCC and on product labels . This and the mesh network thing for TVs are (currently) a conspiracy theory, which sucks because it muddies the waters
10.
by semiquaver 9d ago
The source video is excellent: https://youtu.be/6IFVTcM28KA I have two LG TVs so this freaks me out a lot. I guess I’m fortunate to have kept their network permanently disconnected (we use Apple TV for smart stuff) but who
11.
by semiquaver 12d ago
I thought gimlet was a podcast studio. The subject of Startup season one, even. Not a good name for an unrelated startup.
12.
by semiquaver 12d ago
Ok. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not what I was suggesting.
13.
by semiquaver 12d ago
God damn this writing is just a string of pure claudeisms. I can’t see the actual content because I’m cringing so hard. Why not just post the info you want to convey and the prompt? It would be easier for everyone involved.
14.
by semiquaver 12d ago
What an aggressive way to interact with people. Do you need a nap? Do you? Instead of replying to your rather silly question I’ll just point to this sibling which I’ll co-sign: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49568295
15.
by semiquaver 12d ago
They haven’t been. I’m aware of new golf courses being planned in my area and I hear nothing but enthusiasm. Literally no one brings up water consumption as a concern. This whole thing is a sublimation of vaguer anxieties about AI (which ar
16.
by semiquaver 12d ago
golf courses use much more. But you don’t see massive resistance against new golf courses being planned. Farms use an order of magnitude more than either. You don’t see any demands whatsoever on agriculture to reduce water usage.
17.
by semiquaver 12d ago
The real reason that Anthropic was targeted and OpenAI is not is Palantir. It was a Palantir executive who pushed for the export ban. Large parts of their highly lucrative business with DoD are essentially a thin wrapper over Anthropic mode
18.
by semiquaver 13d ago
Guessing this one will never show up in cursor…
19.
by semiquaver 13d ago
“evade” itself is anthropomorphic enough! I don’t understand the complaining about this. Humans are social creatures and we understand anthropomorphic language on a deeper level than dry inapt technical language. language itself is incredib
20.
by semiquaver 13d ago
That document looks like the change tickets I see at work when investigating internal outages: Risk: none Rollback plan: N/A
21.
by semiquaver 14d ago
> opt-in by default Sorry to nitpick but the scheme you’re referring to is called “opt-out.”
22.
by semiquaver 15d ago
Of course I believe that you act as you describe. But you are not an industry unto yourself. I apologize for questioning your professionalism and wish you all the best. Truly.
23.
by semiquaver 15d ago
> That's called "being in a bubble". I’m perfectly willing to consider the possibility that you may be right, but “a bubble” implies something massive outside of it which constitutes a large majority of the whole,
24.
by semiquaver 15d ago
> many industries that don't trust machine generated code in general. Which ones? Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice? I work in one of the most conservative and highly regulated indust
25.
by semiquaver 16d ago
Pretty sure it’s too late. Lawyers are lazy like everyone else. They don’t want to go back either.
26.
by semiquaver 16d ago
I never said the approach was so stupid it could never work. I just shared how it’s annoying and how I worked around my annoyance. An even stupider approach would work exactly as well or better, like a form saying “type the letter y in this
27.
by semiquaver 16d ago
Tough. The code isn’t worth enough to publish. It means nothing to me and I’d have to figure out how to do it pseudonymously. I only have the one GitHub account.
28.
by semiquaver 16d ago
How good are you personally at iteratively and sequentially jumping through the legal systems of dozens of countries over the course of years, interleaved with genuinely difficult technical investigation, to unmask successive onion-layers o
29.
by semiquaver 17d ago
You don’t need to spend $5000 to obtain the hash rate of a $5000 device on a rental basis. You may have heard of this thing called “the cloud”. Obtaining very high hash rates is effectively free, largely as a side effect of the crypto bust.
30.
by semiquaver 17d ago
Why are you and other defenders of the Anubis approach so fixated on this one specific limitation of a certain type of scraping architecture? It’s hardly an immutable characteristic. You say “they” as if all scrapers are a monolithic group

More ›