hirvi74

Why is that such a bad thing? Imagination is not truly useful for anything without skills to complement it, at least not in my experience.

I understand, but I don't agree the with GP's implication. I don't truly believe the opinions on Israel is enough to categorize one sub as being left or right wing. It's a delicate and highly debated topic, hence why I would consider Worldnews to be an echo chamber, at least on that particular topic.

I learn something new on this site everyday.

Is the topic of Israel and Palestine truly that decisive across some binary party lines? I know people with a wide range of opinions both sides. I feel like it's more loud social media echo chambers than some sort of political schism.

I can see that easily in Finder. List View or Column View displays files like that.

https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/mac-help/mchldaafb302/...

What do you mean by "see the file system?" It's not exactly hard to enable in Finder. In Finder's settings, one can have the root directory, home directory, etc. enabled in the sidebar. Not to mention, one can easily drag & drop common folders into the sidebar too.

Those settings with the hierarchy view makes seeing the file system quite clear in my opinion.

I find this entire rant to be utterly ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I do not think there is anything wrong with Finder. It's honestly no worse than any other file manager that I have used. I much prefer Finder to any alternative I have tried.

I really enjoy the various keyboard shortcuts [1]. I honestly wish more file managers had some of these features. I probably use "shift+command+g" the most. It's so nice being able to jump through Finder like changing directories in the terminal.

Honestly, for more complex tasks, I actually just use the terminal anyway.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102650

Don't forget vaping and nicotine pouch addiction too.

I feel like LLMs have been nothing but a boon for me. I have learned so much programming from them. I have over a decade of experience, but honestly, I have always been a below-average programmer. Good enough for boring CRUD work, but not much more. Forget Leetcode, I'd probably get murdered on the easy questions.

So, if anything, I feel like my learning pace has been greatly accelerated. Your point about working on a broader variety of software is really true for me too. I am working on a game that I likely would have never even started had it not been for LLMs. Mind you, I am still doing the vast majority by hand. However, LLMs have been great for little tutorials, setting out a good game plan, etc. It's like having my own little private tutor.

I know enough to not let the LLMs do everything for me. If they do, then I know I will fall into the trap of something breaking, and then I lack the understanding to fix it. I think they should be used to make life easier, but not easy.

> LLMs do not begin with any sort of concept they're trying to express.

Why do the need to? Considering they are merely tools, I actually appreciate they do not do this. A calculator can compute far better than any human, but I appreciate that calculators are not capable of expressing anything about the computations I request. I want the answer, not a conversation.

> LLMs are simulations that attempt to reproduce what an average person might say while wired up to a huge knowledgebase.

If you will allow me to be simplistic, people -- the soul, the self -- are predominately the aggregated effects of memories and experiences and the ability to retain new memories based on new experiences, no? Consider medical conditions in the dementia family of diseases. As memories fade into the ether, what remains of the self?

Also, people simulate/emulate each other all the time based on what an average, reasonable person might say. People incapable or unwilling to perform such mimicry are often labeled with all kinds of pejorative terms.

J.S. Bach said something similar about music and keyboard instruments.

> "There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."

My issue is not with fact at face value. My issue is with how the fact is often contextually used in arguments to delegitimize and disparage LLM outputs and LLM users.

Yes, LLMs at a fundamental level are next-token predictors. But in my opinion, LLMs are very useful, imperfect next-token predictors.

There are a lot of wannabe John Henry [1] folks out there. Love LLMs or hate'em, most of those John Henry folks ain't beating these machines on a plethora of tasks.

[1] For those unaware, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore)

My poor understanding is that an LLM does not "know" either. It basically uses probabilities to predict the next word based on a large matrix of probable outcomes.

For example, say I ask an LLM, "What sentence in English contains every letter in the alphabet?"

It would respond with something like:

"The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown [next word]"

(Assume all the words were previously guessed correctly at this point)

The LLM guesses the last word based on what it has been trained on. Let's pretend the matrix is small, and the options narrow down to something like:

1. Dog (99.9% confidence) 2. Cow (85% confidence) 3. Bag (75% confidence) 4. Crayon (25% confidence)

The machine can confidently determine the final word of the sentence, "The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown dog" because that sentence is unique because it is often used for testing things like fonts, a fun piece of trivia, and so on.

Brown Cow is not a bad guess because it's a type of cow and a yogurt brand. Brown bags and brown crayons are also perfectly rational adjectives to describe those common items and are not a bad guess either.

However, in the context of that sentence, dog is the most correct answer because one is unlikely to have written "The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown crayon," thus it is quite improbable to be the answer.

My understand is this is where hallucinations can often come from. If the trivia about the sentence happened to not be in common in the data set, then "brown cow" might not be a terrible guess. There is clearly something rational behind that answer, but it's not correct in the sense that it answers the question correctly nor followed the instruction properly.

I'm sure the LLMs we have are far more capable these days. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if an LLM could check its answer by counting the distinct letters in each word to verify. Not sure though.

Again, this is just a poor example based on my understanding, but I hope it helps (and is more correct than not).

Edit: Pretend word = token. It's technically tokens and not entire words, but I didn't not want to get into tokenization of words.

Sure, I get the gist of the article. I have never liked the reductionist argument that LLMs are nothing more than next-token predictors. By that rational, the human brain is really not that much different. When I am having a conversation with another person, I do not usually have every word I will respond with stored in my limited working memory. My output is often predicted based on the previous word I spoke.

Couldn't one just make a separate Google account for the models/AI products? I usually have multiple accounts with most providers, multiple banks, multiple brokerages, etc.. It really is not that difficult to manage.

Though, I only have one HN account, fwiw.

Why do people always have to pinpoint some flaw, issue, or mistake in order to tarnish people that have achieved something great?

Steinem was a human, not a paragon of perfection. She least used some of her time and energy on this Earth to try to make the world a better place.

That is why I am very thankful for my job. We are not really allowed to use LLMs for much of anything.

I had a friend that was quite passionate about foraging for mushrooms while we were in high school. He eventually went on to receive a PhD. in mycology. My old friend as well as everyone else I knew that liked to forage mushrooms were... uh... not looking for "flavorful" mushrooms to say the least.

I'm good with my Safari, but thanks.

(Though, I do use FF on Windows).

If anything, those aspects were probably highly correlated to his success. Our economy runs on a system that does not prioritize nor reward empathy.

I think there is a conflation between attention and attention to details. I understand attention control can vary depending on the engagement value of a task. I have experienced the condition my entire life, I am well aware.

I am not aware of any data that supports being interested in a task lessens the likelihood of making mistakes. If you have any data, I will gladly read it.

I am surprised Anthropic can use their models accurately solve this issue?

Are different services for different users based on geolocation really that difficult? I thought a lot of services operated like this already.

> People with ADHD are differently wired in their brain

I am not sure that is objectively true in the sense that people think. If so, the condition would have a much more objective diagnostic process. I have been professionally described as ADHD, had an fMRI (unrelated reason), and my results came back perfectly normal.

I know n=1, but the data doesn't necessarily suggest that ADHD is some kind of organic, neurological disease.

> ADHD often comes with a high attention to detail

Per the DSM-5, one of the core symptoms of ADHD:

"often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities

There might be a correlation, but I doubt causation. I would argue people with ADHD, like myself, tend to end up in situations where extreme pressure and chaos is more common. Thus, we have more exposure than the average person. I imagine it can be a trainable trait in many people.

I would enjoy automatically generated subtitles more if they weren't wrong about 10% of the time.

I constantly get something like "Today, we are going to discuss which model is better at programming. Is it an tropic's latest model, Cloud Fable? Or is it, Open AI's Chat G pity?"

It's as though Google hired my dyslexic ass to write the subtitles. It trips me up even more because I can't tell if I misread something or the chat messed up sometimes.

I cannot comment on translation or dubbing. English is the only language I can somewhat understand.

Okay, Google bought YouTube earlier than I remembered (2006). For some reason, I remembered the purchase being somewhere around 2009-2012.

So, if I may change my opinion, early YouTube was better, despite being owned by Google. I feel like the platform has been atrocious in the last decade or more. Constant clickbait, a new NordVPN or Raid Shadow Legends ad every 15 minutes, politics being injected into every other video, creators trying to game the algorithm to escape the rat race, the obnoxious algorithm itself, and now I am getting an absurd amount of LLM generated videos.

I would not dare claim there is not great content though. I am listening to a YouTube video as I type this. Though, I have been listening this particular creator since 2006, if that tells you anything.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel YouTube is just getting the slow squeeze of death -- like everything Google wraps its tentacles around.

Does some sort of batched style of research already exist? By batched, I mean a study where n number of teams all agree on a single methodology, and then conduct the same experiment simultaneously. Each team could then publish their results independently and the teams could publish one aggregate.

I know meta studies attempt to do this in a way, but they can sometimes have their own problems too.

I cannot recall coming across this style of research in much of what I have read as a hobby, but maybe it is more common in some domains than others? I am not smart, and there is nothing new under the Sun, so surely something like this exists, no?

I'm with you. I've been riding with Safari for almost 20 years now. It's been nothing but great for me. I cannot think of a time I have used a website that did not function properly in Safari.

Prior to the reintroduction of UBO (lite), I feel like Safari helped me reduce my trash content consumption. Page with tons of ads? Not worth visiting. Youtube keeps playing ads? My frustration is a sign I need to get off YouTube and do something else. I do not need nor want to mange tens of plugins. I like to keep things simple and slim. So, perhaps that is one dealbreaker for some?

Even if I believe Apple hung the Moon, I still seriously recommend Safari to anyone using Apple devices.

It was a better platform when it was its own company back in the day.

I have no idea what the parent meant by, "My guess is that your ASM is inflected by structured programming everywhere."

(I am the GP)

Your response was far better than mine. If those instructions were executed more than a couple of times and the constraints/assertions were identical, I'd absolutely throw them in a function. I'll handle what I need to before/after the function.

I would never branch to some coincidental label. That is why I love ASM so much. If you are sloppy or lazy, you will most likely be punished severely for those choices.

(Tangential, but when I first learned ASM in college, I felt like I learned more in that one semester than all the sum of all classes in my entire degree.)