ShamelessC

:shrug:

Well, I thought this was funny. For what it's worth.

Okay well let's just agree to disagree then.

It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did.

Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.

It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.

That doesn’t sound super sketchy or anything.

This is confusing to me as I thought the simple act of measuring the wave collapsed the wavefunction.

Sad that so many investors/founders couldn't figure this out themselves.

I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to conceal the truth, which is that the guy supported a monster.

It’s a practice, but not necessarily a standard one. In any case if even one person sees that, the advice will have served its purpose.

And bizarrely different plot points.

> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.

What?

> Sure it does.

What? Contradicting yourself immediately?

> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”

…what?

> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.

I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).

> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.

Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.

You’re aware that by prompting it in that way you’re effectively telling it to role play in a fictional scenario?

So do you just have a list of like thousands of specialized discord servers for every question you want to ask? You're the first person I've seen who is actually _fond_ of discord locking information behind a login instead of the forums and issues of old.

I personally don't think it's useful evaluation here either as you're trying to pretend discord is just a "service" like google or chatgpt, but it's not. It's a social platform and as such, there's a ton of variance on which subjects will be answered with what degree of expertise and certainty.

I'm assuming you asked these questions because you yourself know the answers in advance. Is it then safe to assume that you were _already_ in the server you asked your questions, already knew users there would be likely to know the answer, etc? Did you copy paste the questions as quoted above? I hope not! They're pretty patronizing without a more casual tone, perhaps a greeting. If not, doesn't exactly seem like a fair evaluation.

I don't know why I'm typing this all out. Of course domain expert _human beings_ are better than a language model. That's the _whooole_ point here. Trying to match human's general intelligence. While LLM's may excel in many areas and even beat the "average" person - you're not evaluating against the "average" person.

I mean, yeah I was having a tough time understanding it. I felt like my comment conveyed my confusion pretty well. I still think the wording is strange and the most clarifying thing you’ve provided is that this guy is a blogger and his target audience is far less broad than HN encapsulates.

Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.

One of many, yes.

> AI generates image > Bots congratulate it > It learns to generate images more like it > Images become even more deformed

I think it’s pretty unlikely that they are instantly finetuning back on the feedback in this case without filtering and deduplicating. If only because it’s fairly well known to degrade results.

That’s because it is clickbait. Self awareness doesn’t even have a proper testable definition much less verified proof via experiments that wouldn’t immediately be questioned as philosophically fraught.

That’s not to say I don’t personally believe the existence of self awareness in other animals - I do. I just think the bar is incredibly high for actually proving it.

Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception? Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist.

> While inaccurate information may be tolerable when a student uses ChatGPT to help him with their homework, it is unacceptable when it comes to information about individuals.

I don’t even understand this part. Why would inaccurate information be at all acceptable for homework? You need accurate information there just as much as with people. In fact there’s probably a good deal of overlap.

This article is bad.

With all due respect, the people on HN are _weirdly_ in favor of a group whose unstated “zeroth” tenet is basically “be born into wealth, get extremely lucky, disregard common criticism of capitalism, reframe libertarianism if you need. Then and only then can you begin your righteous mission of donating your money “effectively”.

Could you at least consider that the group’s entire premise seems like nothing more than the post hoc rationalization of a bunch of wealthy educated elites with low social and emotional intelligence? The levels of tone deaf I perceive as someone who doesn’t have, can’t have that much wealth to even begin my journey in their little club are enormous.

There’s very little that is subtle about it and it’s frankly offensive and _clearly_ used as a justification for insecure Bay Area “liberals” who find themselves with lots of money and a political identity that makes them insecure about that fact.

The answer? You’re actually saving mankind with your money! It’s just simple Bayesian logic! The same thing that got you here! (Spoiler alert: it was more to do with luck than skill).

If you’re on board, I guess it’s not as offensive? But for me and others, it’s like elites trying to brag about how great they are while the rest of us fight for scraps.

So when you see someone with an axe to grind, maybe consider that EA’s messaging is not as universally appealing as you think, and may even be outright tone deaf enough to cause one to reasonably find it disgusting.

> and he was reportedly ousted from the board by EA-aligned folk.

It seems naive to me to assume that members of EA in positions of power don’t secretly have their own motivations. Furthermore it’s not very “Bayesian” to assume that a implies b here with so many hidden variables at play.

Looks handy. How reliable would you say it is?

This tweet sucks. Provide some context, perhaps? Why would firing the Python team make Google more competitive at GenAI? I can think of only mild correlations between those two things - nothing that really makes any sense though?

> Then I could use it as a monitor without jumping through a bunch of hoops.

bold of you to assume your hdmi cable won't naturally form some hoops.

You think heroin addicts don’t quit simply because they’re too lazy?

Moving the goalposts a bit…

You have low social and emotional intelligence. They’re more important skills to have than you might think.

You might think your bluntness is charming or provides utility ultimately. It doesn’t. It’s offensive, inconsiderate and ineffective if trying to actually persuade anyone (except perhaps yourself).

Further your notion of how weight gain is correlated with “physical laziness” is deeply reductive and indicative of a lacking in basic empathy.

Basically, you’re being an ass hole. It would not surprise me if you were diagnosed with some sort of personality disorder like NPD. Hope that goes well for you in life.

Doesn't seem to work for me. Firefox, M1 Macbook Pro. Just keeps saying "Hey, did you say something about a secret code? I have no idea what you're talking about". The interface isn't very clear about what to do. Do I need to hold the button while I talk? (didn't seem to work) Do I click just once? Twice? Some instructions would be useful.

Do you think Gabe Newell or the countless other successful obese people are somehow immune to this complete lacking in self control? Perhaps they are just puppets controlled by little aliens?

> People don't generally read hacker news

Twisting your words a bit, but it’s been my experience that “indeed”, people don’t read the articles here. Lots of upvoting from just the headline or a quick skim. “I don’t get it but I’m curious what the discussion will reveal for me if I upvote”.

The guidelines here don’t really have a problem with this attitude either. You can make an uninformed upvote, just not an uninformed comment. In practice, both are somewhat common.

Just to really stress how misinformed you are, I too have a launch M1 MacBook Pro w/ 8GB RAM and have only ever had problems with websites that contain a lot of UHD video content or similar.

Valve's "remote play" allows one to play games on another host computer via your Steam Deck as though you are plugged straight. If you don't need the video streaming, you can lower the settings.

edit; oh nm, user wants a direct wired connection to work.

> I concur with you that Etak delivered a functional product, albeit not a commercially successful one, which is farther along than Jodorowsky's Dune project, which stalled mid-way in development.

You seem to be responding to another comment? Or are putting words in the commenters’ mouth?