matt-attack

To me this notion that shoes like this have a spring action that are actually useful seems dubious. Prosthetic blades have a spring constant that’s clearly calibrated to match the cadence of your running step. I really don’t think the little springs on these shoes could possibly have the necessary correct spring constant to be beneficial in that way.

Yes they might cushion your knees and joints from the blows associated with your foot landing on pavement but that’s a different effect that saying the spring action is actually helping you run more efficiently (like prosthetic blades do).

Incorrect. If I say “ think of a famous actor”. (Please do it benefit reading on..) l, aha you actually look back at the process and study it, you’re not actually choosing what you choose. It’s a mere illusion. The famous actor has in fact just come into your mid on its own. There was really no choice.

Funny that the one I actually did growing up all the time was not on the list. Partly because it’s a compound word I suppose, but nonetheless.

SHELL OIL

I still remember the number sequence by heart. There’s something about learning something at that age, it’s seared into my longterm memory.

Funny that we struggle determining if animals are conscious - when I think a deeper question is in front of us: is anyone BUT YOU conscious? Science isn’t usually settled simply by taking people’s word for something. And yet the ONLY creature on this planet I can ever truly know is conscious is ME.

You might tell me you are and I might sort of assume you are since you’re the “same model” - but really, I have no way of knowing you’re experiencing subjectivity the same way I am. Let’s start with our fellow humans before we got onto sperm whales.

Funny you should mention that Feynman story. Because probably more apropos is the story he talks about being able to identify which book on a shelf was recently manhandled - SOLELY BY THE SCENT. I kid you not it if you’re not familiar with that one but I distinctly recall that story from one of his books.

> who is being censored… The author of the program obviously.

If I write a bash script that echos “kill all the Jews”, and you choose to censor it, just who do you think is being censored? The intel professor? No! The author of the bash script obviously!

Could your reasoning be any more condescending to people? What because a computer program spit it out, you think the poor uneducated masses are going to accept it at face value? Really? You ask about the context… great question! Well, the answer is simple, the context is all written language. These LLM don’t spit out text from nothing, instead, their context is all of humanity’s written work.

If you’re not happy with the reasoning that comes out of that training, then point your finger and humanity, not the tool that’s just summarizing it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Well, the arguments out there aren’t that LLM’s are too brash, or discourteous or, insensitive. People are saying they’re “dangerous”. None of your examples speak to danger. No one is censored for being insensitive, or impolite or an opportune or discourteous. I totally support society regulating those things, and even outcastIng individuals who violate social norms. But that’s not what the anti-LLM language is framed as. It’s saying it’s “dangerous “. That’s a whole different ballgame, and I fail to see how such a description could ever apply. We need to stop that kind of language. It’s pure 1984 bullshit.

Thank you. Very well put!

I don’t care what is considered illegal in certain jurisdictions. That’s off topic. Sodomy is illegal in certain jurisdictions. Are you going to try to convince me that I should give two shits about what two or three or four people choose to stick in what hole in the privacy of their homes? We’re taking about this insidious language of LLMs being “dangerous”.

If an LLM printed the text written by the GP about funding a hit, I fail to see how even that is “dangerous”.

I can write a bash script right now that prints that same thing, and I can post it to GitHub. Is anyone going to give two shits about it?

Someone has to explain how an LLM producing that same text is any different than my bash script printing to STDOUT. There’s not fucking difference. A program printed some text and there’s no argument behind the case that it’s dangerous.

I agree - but where we are with LLM is even worse than your hypothetical knife. The knife is a real object - what we're talking about is the censorship of thoughts and ideas. What else is the written word but that? How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? How manipulative is it to even use the word "danger" with respect to text. The distain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation.

> but that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the need for safety.

I think even using the word "safety" over and over like you're doing is part of the problem. Find a new word, because we've spend 200 years in this country establishing that the written word is sacrosanct and not to be censored. All of a sudden, ASCII text just became "dangerous" in the last year. I simply refused to accept that any written text (regardless of who wrote it) needs to be censored. The written is just the embodiment of a thought, or notion - and we cannot go around tricking people into thinking that "thoughts" need to be regulated and that there are certain thoughts that are "dangerous". This is a toxic 1984 mindset.

Yes. We should absolutely censor thoughts, and certain conversations. Free speech be damned - some thoughts are just so abhorrent we just shouldn't allow people to have them.

I have yet to see a single compelling argument for all of this censoring of LLMs that everyone just seems to accept as table stakes. From the article:

> While this safety feature is crucial for preventing misuse

How did we all just accept to start using "safety" in this context? We're talking about a computer program that emits text. How on earth did "safety" come into this?

Why is the text any different than the text of a book? Are people constantly hand-wringing about what words might appear in books that adults read? Why do we not hear these same people going on and on about the "dangers of the written word" in book form?

I simply refuse to accept any of this BS about text-based AI being "dangerous". It's 1984-level censorship.

Are there ideas we feel adults just shouldn't hear? Is there super secret knowledge we don't think adults should discover?

Can any one truly justify this ridiculous notion that "we absolutely must censor *text*"? I feel like I'm living in a bizzaro world where otherwise clear thinking, liberal-minded, anti-book-burning, anti-censorship, free-speech advocates just all knee-jerk and parrot this ludicrous notion that "AI typing out text is DANGEROUS".

Don’t forget Angles.

Well it’s still not E2EE so it should he green in my opinion. Green means “this is being logged by the phone company like it’s 1999 and can be subpoenaed at any time”.

Sounds like that still true of RCS since it still works with the phone company. Why in the hell are they needed when every modern messaging app just worked using, you know, The Internet?

Can’t you just paste the DL image into a Note and then password protect it?

I frankly just have photos of DL and insurance cards in my photos with tags to make finding them easy. Although note with the text searchable images that’s largely not even needed.

I don’t get what the security concern in. My photo reel is way more secure than my actual wallet.

Agreed. Just the notion of double disambiguation is meaningless to a chess player who doesn’t use the notation. This is fundamentally not about chess. But about one particular way that certain people use to write down chess moves.

This quote has been circulating recently:

> I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes

It’s got nothing to do with cars and the focus on them alone will lead to the wrong confusion. Grey -scale palettes have taken over the world. Look at houses, home interiors, even fashion. It’s everywhere.

Social features? I like the CI/CD stuff and Pages.

I found the process entirely ineffective. They apparently have done moral code (de jour) where they’ve decided not to ever tell you anything or give advice and instead to just listen. Ann’s her the patient talk. This may work for certain personality types but sole people find talking Anna’s talking about themselves exhausting and NOT therapeutic.

So why not just reuse the known design that works. No one said this proposed $3k car had to look different?

This whole argument is bunk. Just settle on a design (perhaps borne out of your higher end model) let it trickle down your product line (unchanged) other than stripping useless gadgets, etc.

Why do people assume those in the market for a $3k car care that it have a brand new body style?

Agree, they’re strong but in the particular case of the article, it seems the introduction of mere turnips did this one in.

When I'm at a restaurant and I don't see anything I like, I just order something "off the menu".

When I'm at a restaurant and I like everyone I see, I order something "off the menu".

That was very well done.

Funny I’ve been leaving it out in the pantry for years. It just switched to the fridge only because I find it too runny at room temp. My son dribbles it everywhere trying to make pb&js.

Sadly CP laws do not recognize that one end of that spectrum is OK. If I draw a photo realistic drawing (or even non photo realistic, ie anime) of CP I’m a felon in the eyes of our pathetic laws.

There’s an excellent 2hr or so podcast episode on free will that has drastically changed my mind on the notion of determinism. The main argument is that the notion of “choice” is in fact an illusion and when you dive into what you’re actually doing when you “choose” you realize that it’s really just determinism under the hood.

In other words a deterministic universe is actually completely consistent with our experience once you realize that the mechanism of us “choosing” anything is really an illusion.

Highly recommend it.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-sense-with-sam-...

The TSA’s obsession with identity is unfounded. It really doesn’t matter *who* you are. It matters what you’re carrying on the plane.

Focus on ensuring no weapons are carried aboard and that’s really all you have to do.

Plus the out-of-nowhere reference to the door falling off a different plane. How is that related exactly?