dmd

that's the joke

Counterpoint: When you're not looking for things, you don't find them.

Which is why the current US administration is destroying any kind of science that might find, say, climate change, or emerging pandemics.

It's not just research into things like that. As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the researchers in my department had a study canceled because something they did "engendered a robust hemodynamic response". Someone replied saying theirs was canceled for "mineral inclusion". There are thousands of things like this. It's not about DEI, it's about getting rid of science, because science is at odds with their view of the US.

>> It looks like this isn't something I can help you with. Would you like to be connected to a human who can help?

> Sure!

>> Ok, I'm connecting you to a human now.

[5 minutes later]

> Hello?

>> Hi! What can I help you with?

> Are you a human?

>> No, I'm an AI agent programmed to help you with anything you need. What can I do for you?

> You said you were going to connect me to a human.

>> That isn't something I can do. What can I help you with?

Turns out "connecting to a human" is something it knows about in its training data so it'll hallucinate doing so.

One of the researchers in my department had a study canceled because something they did "engendered a robust hemodynamic response".

Whoops, keyword match.

Yep. I'm in Boston (USA) and I have literally met perhaps 2 people ever who have an Android phone - and both of them aren't from the US.

One of my colleagues study was shut down because the medication “engendered a strong response”.

“Your body doesn’t work perfectly? Dunno man, mine does.”

Sure, information on all sorts of things is in “the library”. But (a) most people in the world don’t have access to a decent library (if you’re on HN you’re statistically much more likely to), (b) most people have no idea how to use one (same), and most importantly (c) AI will distill the knowledge from ten books you might need to read into step by step simple instructions if you ask.

I asked it to clip a video onto segments based on location of spoken words (using separately done audio transcription) and it flagged that as cyber.

It was always the case that a mean person could throw a rock at you and you'd die. Therefore, nuclear weapons are nothing to be worried about.

Same. I'm working on a set of python and matlab scripts that deals with segmenting MRI images into brain vs skull, and it thinks that's bioterrorism.

That's literally the first thing in the article.

> I'm pretty confident it's Gemini behind the curtain for Siri.

I mean, they said it was.

My examples are all internal/confidential, but if someone from the project wants an example I could probably do some search/replace redaction. It would be a lot of work though because there's photographs and such too, and indexes, and tables, and documents inserted by reference, cross references, conditional fields, bibliography fields, formula fields, etc etc.

So I just tried this with a bunch of medium-complex documents and it's wildly wrong. I suspect the authors have never seen an actually complicated Word document?

My guess is the author uses a terrible and abusive registrar and isn’t aware that not all registrars are terrible and abusive.

Simply because the “other team” likes them. That’s it.

> You go to a university because you are deeply interested in understanding the subject that you study.

This has not been true for something like 70 years now. People go to university because it is expected that that is what you do after high school.

Greg Egan wrote an entire (fabulous) book about exactly that, "Permutation City".

Most of the point is the button-feel, though. If I'm just gonna use a computer, I might as well use a full REPL.

The article is poorly written. "The report" there refers to the linked study in the previous paragraph, not the Pope's encyclical.

See also https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fn...

Odd. For me more than half are the other guy.

because the movement of people displaced by Katrina has been extremely well documented for the last 20 years?

Like, there are entire journals and programs of study devoted to it. I’m not just guessing here.

Not the greatest example because they both do find me, but here's an example of where Kagi is supposed to be better at precisely this, but isn't. Search without quotes for daniel drucker mclean.

That's me, and Google correctly on the first page finds ONLY pages related to me.

Kagi pollutes the page with many results for my doppelgänger, the much more famous Daniel J Drucker of the University of Toronto, even though none of those results mention mclean.

That is literally the thing Kagi was supposed to be better at - actually respecting your search terms instead of thinking it knows better!

Someone who was 7 during Katrina at that time is roughly 28 today.

Using the Census ACS age brackets, about 20-ish% of louisiana's population is under 15, and another 20 is between 15 and 29. Everyone 30 and older adds up to the other 60.

So a hair over 60% are were at least 7.

But that's who lives there now not who lived there then. Between 2005 and 2006 the state population dropped by 6% and most of that displaced population never returned - people coming in from elsewhere weren't there for Katrina. So the fraction who were both living there AND old enough to remember it is considerably smaller than 60%.

So like I said, roughly half.

No, they don't, because only about half of people in Louisiana are old enough to remember it.

Well, I'm "some people", and just tried it with Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.5, and neither had any problem at all.

The linked article is from research done more than 4 years ago. If you're basing your idea of what LLMs can or can't do on what they could or couldn't do in 2022, well, good luck to you.

I really really really really want to love Kagi, but every time I try it (and I just spent a month trying it, ending a week or so ago), I end up back at Google, finding that my search results are better.

I think the reason is my searches are almost entirely long-tail searches that Kagi's index just isn't good enough for. I am never searching for something like "best mattress" or anything else that is heavily SEO'd - it's always something very specific - so the result page in Google looks pretty much exactly like the Kagi page, only it nearly always has the result I'm looking for where Kagi's doesn't.