mikkupikku

A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.

> Was this started as a resource war, or as a money-making scheme, or as a distraction from the Epstein files, or just because DJT developed actual old age dementia after purging anyone who might say 'no'?

Or because America is filled with demented cultists who think a two thousand year old property dispute is the key to triggering the Apocalypse so they can all be whisked away to paradise.

He's saying that carpenters who make nice things wouldn't use a material like that, but they objectively do and this doesn't sacrifice the aesthetic or artistry.

He specifically calls out the use of the material in a place it wouldn't be seen as something that the carpenter making beautiful cabinets wouldn't do, but that's actually something they absolutely do. He's trying to argue some other point by way of this analogy, but his analogy is wrong because he doesn't know anything about it. It would be like if I was trying to argue my point by way of car analogy but the example I chose was to say that car enthusiasts insist on genuine OEM parts, I'm only exposing myself as somebody who doesn't understand car people.

Shit like this is why you really have to read the plans instead of blindly accepting them. The bots are naturally lazy and will take short cuts whenever they think you won't notice.

Steve Jobs didn't really know anything about cabinetry, because using plywood / MDF in places where it won't be seen but which would benifit from dimensional stability is absolutely common and there's no reason it shouldn't be.

Cringe.

The experiment was done in the context of Adolf Eichmann arguing at his trial that he was not a Nazi, never was, and was merely following orders. This was of course not even remotely true. If the argument was instead "I only became a Nazi because of their propaganda", that might be plausible but falling for propaganda doesn't make you less culpable for atrocities which you committed willingly.

The version of the Milgram experiment taught to undergrads asks people to believe that you'll follow orders you would ordinarily consider abhorrent simply because you were commanded. But there's basically no evidence for that. People follow orders if those orders are justified in a way that seems persuasive. Nobody ever doubted that Nazis persuaded people to join them. That's not a surprising or even remotely novel finding.

What they teach undergrads about the experiment: People blindly follow orders. If the Nazis ordered you to commit atrocities, you probably would!

What the experiment actually showed: People follow orders when the orders are justified within a persuasive ideological context, e.g. you value science and the scientific researcher is telling you to proceed for the sake of science.

In the first, people who follow the orders of Nazis are not necessarily ideologically aligned with the Nazis, they might just be in a brainless order-following trance. But this isn't real, and in reality the people who were "just following orders" were in fact ideological committed to the cause and should be judged accordingly.

> But I suppose death comes for us all, yes? Why do anything at all?

Wrong take. Death comes for us all, yes, so why hold back? Do you want to live forever?

Juggle five guns after loading one.

Apollo killed three astronauts. NASA learned some lessons from that and the rest of the program was safer, although still extremely risky.

I wouldn't say brainwashed, but they're definitely aware of the political angles related to succeeding with a career at NASA and almost always agree to play ball without causing trouble for the org.

Extra tactless considering Shatner is a recovering alcoholic.

> In both Challenger and Columbia, nobody bothered to analyze the problem because they didn't think there was a problem.

False on both counts. Both the SRB joint design issue and the foam shedding were known, researched and dismissed very early in the shuttle program. They suspected it after STS-1 and confirmed it within a few flights.

It's the same explaination. When the SRB joints flexxed the o-rings were meant to stay in place, but the joints were defective and NASA knew the o-rings were moving. However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint, in a way that wasn't intended but was nonetheless at least marginally effective at stopping exhaust blow-by shortly after it began. But when the o-rings were cold and stiff... they didn't move the same way, exhaust blew by them longer and cut right through. At that point the SRB turns into a cutting torch (the SRBs didn't actually explode until after the shuttle broke up and range safety sent the signal to kill the boosters.

I wouldn't be nearly so concerned if not for the blatant coverup and downplaying from NASA. This makes the whole situation easily pattern match to Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, where political pressure to ignore problems and drive forward anyway got people needlessly killed.

These treatments work best in conjunction with sunlight, which is unfortunately lacking in salt mines.

Realistically the party with the most straight forward financial incentive to do this should be the first we suspect, and that would certainly be the platform itself.

Characterizing it as a "shame tag" is a value judgement I simply don't share, but if that framing is made common them you're definitely asking for people to lie about it.

I don't put human code reviewers down as coauthors let alone the sole authors of my commit. So honestly, the fact that a vibe coded commit lists me as the author at all is a little bit dodgy but I think I'm okay with it. The LLM needs to be coauthor at least though, if not outright the author.

So even if I go over the commit with a fine tooth comb and feel comfortable staking my personal reputation on the commit, I still can't call myself the sole author.

Let your employer's lawyers worry about that. If they say not to use LLMs, then you should abide by that or find a new job. But if they don't care, then why should you?

As for hobby projects, I strongly encourage you to not care. You aren't going to lawyer up to sue anybody, nor is anybody going to sue you, so YOLO. Do whatever satisfies you.

It's not a self-own, it's honest disclosure. It's unethical (if not outright fraudulent) to publish LLM work as if it were your own. Claude setting itself as coauthor is a good way to address this problem, and it doing so by default is a very good thing.

So? If the newspaper's website is willing to serve the documents, what's the problem?

The point is, if you're pleading with others to respect ""intellectual property"" then you're a worm serving corporate interests against your own.

Do you really believe we'd have "peace and food for everyone" if not for Apollo? Really?

Or is this an unserious argument you can use to nitpick anything? Why is my local government building another playground when they could be feeding African orphans??

There is zero empirical evidence that aliens actually exist. All the arguments for why they should exist despite this lack of evidence are borderline theology.

> ""useful"

Fuck all of it is useful besides satellites. Even the HST is only marginally useful; useful for fields of research which will almost certainly never have tangible benefits for life on Earth, built to satisfy our curiosity about phenomena too large and far from Earth to ever be put into use here on Earth.

Nonetheless, interesting? You're bonkers if a system like the Apollo program and all associated hardware isn't at least interesting.

To be fair. 8GB of ram is huge. I don't know, maybe I'm stuck in the early 00s but even 2 GB of ram still seems extravagant; I remember when that was an exotic amount of RAM for dedicated gamers to play extremely high fidelity games, so for a mere web server 8 GB of ram almost seems like absurd overkill. I still feel a tinge of shame whenever I see any software of my own using more than a few hundred megabytes. What a waste.

Yes, regulation is inevitable.

When somebody uses a tool to hurt somebody, they need to be held accountable. If I smack you with a hammer, that needs to be prosecuted. Using AI is no different.

The problem here is incidental to the tool; it was done by the cops and therefore nobody will be held accountable.

We used to until quite recently. Anybody could buy dynamite at the hardware store. We had to end this because of criminals using it to hurt people.