max__dev

What does the ability to encode or decode data in binary have to do with the brain being or not being a binary computer?

What is throwing 5 jimbobs into prison going to do?

I can't find any author with such a sweeping and elegant theory. But if you do have any sources of inspiration, reading material, or recommended authors at hand, I'd be happy to take a look.

If not those authors, which ones? Or is this your own theory?

I'm curious when the music will stop and people realize that programming languages are more optimal at describing certain behaviors than english.

What reading materials/authors do you recommend? The history here and in many of your comments is orthogonal to my mainstream understanding.

This is about as far as I could guess as well. Unfortunately by this logic you could just as easily implicate France and the UK for the Munich agreement, as well as the failure to excercise their defense pact with Poland. So essentially every party with exception of Germany and the United States is at fault for WW2. This also leaves the Pacific theatre unaccounted for as you implied. So I'm very curious what the original commenter intends.

> Communists caused World War 2 and yet love to play the victim.

This is an unconventional position. What's your rationale?

Yes no child left behind is famously liberal dei. /s This issue is non partisan and not limited to the USA.

Don't worry, LLMs will do a great job once they add the tutorial you found to their training data.

People not wanting to give money to someone they don't like is now purity politics and hypocrisy?

the comment is a reply to a comment concerning "all jobs"

A more facetious way to put "don't use LLMs": share your input prompt. The people who don't want to read LLM output won't have to see it, and those who do can enjoy using an LLM the same way the author would've. This actually saves a loss/noise step as the consumers won't need to deploy an llm to summarize the authors llm expanded output.

$ chatgpt make this comment more glib

I'm glad to see this studied. I'm just surprised at the reactions I'm seeing.

Whether it is okay or not has no bearing on it being theft. And no need to create a hypothetical, this is exactly what happened to musicians.

There is broad evidence that labs have used substantial amounts of pirated data, no need to reach for a new definition of theft.

Rhetoric machine successfully practices oratory. More news at 11.

It's good to see this studied, but this should really be more obvious.

Musicians are paid to record music. If they were not, as is the case for ai data, we would indeed consider it theft.

Private healthcare is much worse, seemingly they have an open access policy. New breaches occur in the order of millions per week. Not remotely newsworthy anymore. (last time this was mainstream worthy was 200M leaked records in 2024). Last week https://www.securityweek.com/4-1-million-impacted-by-adapthe... Week before that https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/more-9-5-million-pati... 2 weeks before that: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general/carecloud-confirms-...

You wrote "apt apt apt apt apt apt" to prove a very specific point no? Absolutely requires reasoning and understanding the problem to go there. And good luck getting an LLM to do that.

If Apple's accusations are to be believed, oai is flagrantly breaking the law. Not exactly an unwritten code. Too soon in the news cycle to start the revisionism.

1. GPL is extremely and intentionally political 2. anti-colonialism is not a trait of culture 3. the state of being gay/trans is not political 4. culture != politics 5. is != ought

Of course people can have their preferences, but presumably that reaction implies "gay/trans anti-colonialist" ought to be a problem for some "political/cultural" groups?

What is the aim of that?

My read is that the authors are signalling their community is a "safe space". I don't think they're trying to exclude particular cultures, trigger people, or otherwise cause problems.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

I don't think the copy-paste dismissal is sound. Consider: You can ideally copy paste your generic comment across all potential LLM-written-criticism comments? And I can copy paste this generic comment on all LLM-written-criticism-apologist comments. Something doesn't add up here.

Had to turn off adblock to delete my sessions (firefox, ublock) Seems to be daisy chained through their telemetry service. Kinda bizarre.

Checked my spam after seeing this thread and found the same sender/email. Subject and signature are slightly changed.

From: james@techglobal.website Brief note – Following up on your GitHub work

Hi ,

I came across your profile on GitHub. Given you're based in the US, I thought it might be relevant to reach out.

Profile:

I run a technical team (full-stack, cloud, DevOps) that delivers for clients. We're looking to work with an engineer based in the US on client-facing coordination—discovery, requirements, alignment—while we handle delivery. If that might be relevant, I'd be glad to set up a short call.

Best, James

Even if it was Email OR password, that would still be one factor due to the OR. I do not think they are discussing in good faith.

The following is copied from wikipedia.

The authentication factors of a multi-factor authentication scheme may include: 1. Something the user has: Any physical object in the possession of the user, such as a security token (USB stick), a bank card, a key, a phone that can be reached at a certain number, etc. 2. Something the user knows: Certain knowledge only known to the user, such as a password, PIN, PUK, etc. 3. Something the user is: Some physical characteristic of the user (biometrics), such as a fingerprint, eye iris, voice, typing speed, pattern in key press intervals, etc.

Email and phone are both in category one, comprising only one unique factor.

The article is not about MFA. It is about using email as a single factor.

I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments.

What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...

I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate.

If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?

Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".