z3c0

5 ms·

1.
by z3c0 6d ago
I expect because it's overly reductive to the point of falsehood. Two sufficiently complex systems will likely exhibit enough parallels to form a useful analogy, but that does nothing to reflect the ways the systems aren't alike
2.
by z3c0 19d ago
I'm not outside of enterprise and have worked hands-on for over a decade with AI-driven customer workflows. The cost of accessibility audits are NOT higher than AI R&D or third-party B2B contracts for vaporware touting to do the
3.
by z3c0 19d ago
Because they would have to reveal their training regiment, which likely formed the basis for versions 4 and 5. Or did you just mean the weights? If so, the open models distilled from GPT3 should mostly suffice. That's what good "o
4.
by z3c0 19d ago
Research and fallbacks would certainly be better. An 85% design, 15% algorithmic solution is probably the sweet "pobody's nerfect" spot, but a company using AI to solve accessibility is like selling rape whistles -- in a perf
5.
by z3c0 19d ago
> Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood' I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don&#x2
6.
by z3c0 19d ago
Using AI to close gaps in accessibility is like adding treads to your vehicle because society is too lazy to pave roads.
7.
by z3c0 25d ago
Yeah, the holier-than-thou vibe-coder is a new cliche I'm not enjoying.
8.
by z3c0 26d ago
I have seen it do exactly that, in a "hands thrown up" fashion. Note the levels of "thinking" that occur on NOT assertions. Those streams typically keep things on track. It's not that saying "don't use the
9.
by z3c0 26d ago
Correct. Simulating a train of thought with contextual token streams, a thought does not make.
10.
by z3c0 26d ago
It'll work up to a point, but pay attention to the thought streams when asserting what NOT to do and you'll see the turmoil it creates in the context. Your prompt is more of a linguistic linchpin that allows you to coax out needed
11.
by z3c0 27d ago
It's also worth noting that saying "Don't cheat" just added "cheat" to the context. Prompting what "not" to do is folly, because there's no decision making occurring. Telling the model to perform
12.
by z3c0 28d ago
The AI service that trained and hosts the model, and then gave access to the general public while deferring their actual liability via a sneaky ToS. It's strange how many people feel ownership over "their" agents, and it&#x27
13.
by z3c0 1mo ago
And whether or not what replaces it is any better. Historically speaking, widespread democracy is still a recent development.
14.
by z3c0 2mo ago
Also, analytics are not limited by JavaScript and browser APIs. Getting your attention isn't so valuable without knowing how to do it a second time.
15.
by z3c0 2mo ago
I'm struggling to imagine aliens resurrecting a data center and countless hackneyed python packages so they can spew a language they don't even know. Not that it wouldn't be useful to their linguists, of course, but still a v
16.
by z3c0 2mo ago
When measuring and reporting models to the non-saavy, I usually reframe them into odds. One failure for every 49 successes is a scary failure rate when operating at a large scale. This is largely why I don't condone LLMs in operational
17.
by z3c0 3mo ago
> Artificial intelligence, by expanding firms' computational capabilities, is pushing markets from the competitive regime toward the collusive regime, explaining the empirical emergence of algorithmic collusion without explicit coor
18.
by z3c0 3mo ago
I miss "predictive analytics". Too boring and honest for marketers though.
19.
by z3c0 3mo ago
Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife
20.
by z3c0 3mo ago
> I hope they can expose the ridiculousness of software copyrights but I won't be holding my breath. I think it has already, but it's a hard pill for many to swallow. While I haven't actually counted, the conversations aro
21.
by z3c0 3mo ago
The goal is the product, but what is being exchanged is production , ie labor for a certificate of your own past production, aka money.
22.
by z3c0 3mo ago
> Heaven help me, though, should I misuse a corporation's copyrighted works, even purely personally. This imbalance is the issue. The photographer attempted to use a fraudulent system designed for the wealthy. Hopefully the loss dis
23.
by z3c0 3mo ago
So "Play Protect" is doing all the damage to the third-party ecosystem that it'd seemed designed for. I've slowly but surely been moving away from any service provider of any type who does not allow me to use their servi
24.
by z3c0 3mo ago
It's a retrospective analysis of an assertion made by NYTimes. The original headline wasn't clickbait, just presumptive, and even so, it's a pretty significant publication that spends a lot of time on the HN front page (along
25.
by z3c0 3mo ago
They are a self-described 10x coder who moves AI slop, so almost certainly the latter. I think we might be facing a cultural reckoning on what being "productive" actually means. Creating more products doesn't mean more produc
26.
by z3c0 3mo ago
That might be an even more naive take. Can you show me one space, historically, in any industry, where a company climbed to the top of a market solely on altruistic intentions?
27.
by z3c0 3mo ago
I mean this earnestly: is this copy?
28.
by z3c0 3mo ago
I mean, I agree with your general point that copyright might need to be reconsidered, but this doesn't seem like an attempt to reconsider it. It's rather transparently enabling further cronyism.
29.
by z3c0 3mo ago
Never gotten any emails from lawyers, I see. Copyright laws are heavily enforced, only selectively.
30.
by z3c0 3mo ago
I believe that machines could potentially be conscious, and don't buy for a second that chess algorithms or LLMs could be themselves.

More ›