teiferer

6 ms·

1.
by teiferer 3d ago
If there is an escalator that is known for killing every 1000's person using it then the operator who started it is more guilty than the folks using it for those deaths, don't you think?
2.
by teiferer 3d ago
> We certainly have a different “tokenizer” and training set, but many of the concepts underpinning LLMs are both biologically inspired and, likely, have similar consequences and emergent architectures. My kids tricycle certainly has a d
3.
by teiferer 3d ago
What is your approach to create jailbreak incapable agents? I think the world is looking for a way right now, so if yours works you'll get very rich, or at least very famous.
4.
by teiferer 3d ago
The propaganda police are lying. There is nothing wrong with assembly, you are just too lazy to manage your own register allocations and stack layout, and you accepted that propaganda that "manage your own register allocations and stac
5.
by teiferer 3d ago
Depends on who started the escalator.
6.
by teiferer 4d ago
Just like you would expect from algebra. The empty sum is 0, the empty product is 1.
7.
by teiferer 4d ago
So, you are actually arguing against yourself and are agreeing with me?
8.
by teiferer 4d ago
> Just remove hacking (bio-weapon, etc.) data from the training dataset and you're done. How far do you go? You don't need to tell it explicitly that using chemicals A and B in ways X and Y result in a bomb that can kill lots o
9.
by teiferer 4d ago
I find that a weird argument for saying humanity has "ignored or abandoned" nuclear weapons.
10.
by teiferer 4d ago
I don't see how that is more dangerous than two crazy head of states deciding that it's time for armageddon. The outcome is the same (99% of humans dead), it's equally easy to technically not do it (don't press the butto
11.
by teiferer 4d ago
"But sir, I only committed the murder to push for stronger criminal laws!" Terrible defense.
12.
by teiferer 4d ago
> LLMs do not desire, they hacked websites because OpenAI/Anthropic let them. "Let them" already frames it as if the LLMs had some agency which the companies just "let happen". That absolves the companies by fram
13.
by teiferer 4d ago
> The very best outcomes involve us intentionally and collectively turning our attention away from this technology. To expand on the "pure fantasy" sister comment: There is just no way this will happen. It's in the spirit
14.
by teiferer 4d ago
> There are numerous technologies we have ignored or abandoned for numerous reasons. Are there? Nukes are a thing. Chemical weapons are a thing. Cluster bombs are a thing. Biological weapons are a thing. What is not a thing that should
15.
by teiferer 4d ago
> We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. That exact sentence could have been said 20 years as well
16.
by teiferer 5d ago
Yeah, lots of redheads were burned back in the day because people "felt" things.
17.
by teiferer 5d ago
All true. But question is whether the positive consequences outweigh the negative. That may be the case, but it may not be. I don't find it obvious and not considering this is careless.
18.
by teiferer 5d ago
Sure, filter whatever fits your taste. But it's not slop, so "unslop.news" may not be the perfect name.
19.
by teiferer 5d ago
Currently there is an article about feeling sad w.r.t. AI on the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661506 That one is filtered out too. Surely nobody is going to claim that it is slop?
20.
by teiferer 5d ago
> if most of a user or author's writing is consistently human-generated, then I think we are very happy giving them the benefit of the doubt if one article or snippet flags the actually good ai detector I would agree to that approac
21.
by teiferer 5d ago
Ah thanks. Fair.
22.
by teiferer 5d ago
Yes AI slop is prevalent. But the casualties that get thrown under the bus are also real, don't you agree? Is it really worth it to sacrifice those? In the name of the larger good? I'm arguing that we're losing something by d
23.
by teiferer 5d ago
> You actually didn't. The construct is slightly different. Well I know that I did, so you are wrong with that claim, which sheds a strong (negative) light on other statements of fact that you posted in this discussion. You may disa
24.
by teiferer 5d ago
> I will donate $100 to charity if I made a false accusation That's honorable but not how accusations work. There is a first level indirect effect of painting somebody in a light that damages the reputation of their work or their pe
25.
by teiferer 5d ago
Me neither, but just running around accusing random folks of things is not going to help. To the contrary. If a real author doing real work with a lot of effort risks being accused of things they didn't do and just dismissed, you'
26.
by teiferer 5d ago
Have you actually read the article? They point out multiple times that they like the Waymo ride and would use one again and loved it. It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research. And here you
27.
by teiferer 5d ago
They are overrepresented in HN discussions for sure as there is an over-reliance on them that just aims to shut down discussions. Which is ironic since they are a tool folks are trusting blindly supposedly used to argue against tool use wit
28.
by teiferer 5d ago
That sounds like a great theory but is not consistent with the observation that until not too long ago, diesel used to be cheaper. How do you explain that? That's the problem with hindsight theories, especially if only using a limit ho
29.
by teiferer 5d ago
What is "a Claude sentence"?
30.
by teiferer 5d ago
Have you also scanned earlier work of the author with pangram to establish a baseline? Pangram is not without problems.

More ›