briangriffinfan

I'm willing to believe those two dishes represent a wide set of skills and knowledge that would generalize to being a generally skillful cook.

50% is my personal threshold for a discount going from not worth it to worth it.

I get more and more exhausted every time I see the, to give a hyperbolic comparison, "The momentum generated by our economy of scale means we really have no choice but to keep the orphan-crushing machine going."

I may be an old man yelling at the clouds here, but I just wish "Maybe the fact that they're trying to be so big that problems like this become inevitable" were rhetorically explored more.

An acute memory will remember this happening with basically every chatbot trained on text scraped from the internet, before they had to explicitly program them to avoid doing that.

How do you point out to someone that they're doing this in a way they won't just like... knee-jerk deny and reverse? Is there no solution and this is ultimately a sign of bad-faith discussion? It feels more and more likely...

That reminds me of when I worked at Kroger.

Promise?

After mulling this issue over in my head for a significant amount of time, I've determined that I don't care and he sounds more natural.

Well... define "thought."

It's one thing to just say something nice ought to be a right, and it's another to put it into a rigorous law that will last us indefinitely and have sprawling effects on a lot of different areas while we make sure it doesn't ruin or break anything.

There's something that feels tremendously off to me about these defenses which are to the effect of "What's so wrong with this? In principle, there's nothing saying a human couldn't also make one of these errors."

I think about the AI vending machine business simulation. Yes, LLMs were able to keep it running for a long time, but they were also prone to nosediving failure spirals due to simple errors a human would spot immediately.

People point to an infinity in the distance where these LLMs cross some incredibly high threshold of accuracy that lets us thoughtlessly replace human workers and thinkers with them... I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe this.

It's annoying in the same way gish gallopping is annoying: you're giving me nothing except resistance in a way you've formulated to appear as though it's in good faith, even though it's not.

> Just as it does when humans write drivel by hand.

I see this a lot in AI discussions - it can, at best, do what we do at a level we'd consider "good enough." It can write mediocre slop just as well as the most mediocre of us. To me, that is lowering the bar for our work exceptionally. We shoot for the stars; we just miss sometimes!

It seems there's always a line able to be drawn from a view one disagrees with to the harm that is caused by not contradicting them, and in my experience this does not correlate with how harmful contradiction of the initial view actually is.

So with regard to the paradox of tolerance, I would say one needs to establish that their opponent's views are actually sufficiently intolerant to intrinsically be harmful - and this is not something one can always trust to be done without exaggeration.

I notice this idea repeatedly popping up, that "content made by humans" is more-or-less equivalent to content generated by genAI inasmuch as genAI can "in theory" (in some sense) create the same thing a human could and so they're both "in theory" the same thing.

The idea that words people write don't mean anything or imply anything in an abstract sense is misguided, in my opinion. When one reads something a person wrote, they think about what the person who wrote it was thinking, what it means to them, what the implications of what they think might be... there are people who do not think about things like this, so they don't care and view genAI text as equivalent because that level of thought simply isn't put into their reading.

Anyway, my point is talking on a forum filled with LLMs would probably stop being interesting and engaging very quickly because LLMs are bad at emulating the lateral thinking, diversity of ideas, and abstraction of communication that make talking to a human fun.

One requires a better reason than simply because they were told that their skepticism is unsubstantiated.

This is already brilliant! I feel like giving myself a discrete math refresher.

You're so sarcastic I have no choice but to believe you.