powera

John Rush is a troll posting fake stories to churn engagement.

He is correctly flagged.

The fact that he uses the flagging to complain on social media to churn more engagement just means that we need to keep flagging him. (ref https://twitter.com/johnrushx/status/1758962087701741815 )

Mr. Rush, if you're reading: please stop trolling and lying.

Or just let it get flag-killed; do we really need reddit tales that are too-good-to-be-true on the homepage?

I am getting sick of these "people can't be allowed to make their own nice things easily, because of a pugnacious (and very online) interest group that wants to keep getting money" takes.

The passcode "O P E" isn't "Peace On Earth", it is the first letters of the word "Open".

"Joseon is not a party" because it isn't a nation-state (like the signatories of that treaty), it is rasengan's personal micronation/cryptocurrency.

This proves nothing; note "This conversation may reflect the link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and can meaningfully change how the model responds."

This is indistinguishable from gibberish. A common symptom of "quantum bullshit" articles.

If they have something that isn't nonsense, they can write a better article.

He could have just re-assigned them to work on LLMs.

But no. Now, after paying many millions in severance, he is hiring an entirely new team to do an LLM model.

Yup. The headline is "fake science", by and for moral scolds. The study doesn't even come close to demonstrating the headline claim.

People are going to believe the worst about AI for the rest of the decade, for reasons entirely unrelated to what actually happens.

Concluding "if we respect people's feelings and do one weird trick, people will suddenly trust AI" is naive beyond number.

(almost a) dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38600031

Also, as the finished product is more epoxy than wood by mass, the naming is a bit misleading.

What exactly is the "science" that they do autonomously on these ten-minute flights?

Perhaps more relevant is that, after being acquired by private equity, Zulily is (probably) shutting down.

Apparently litigation is more profitable than competition.

All the comments are suggesting, roughly, that 3M is somehow "evil" for getting out of the floppy disk business.

But nobody uses floppy disks anymore! (This is a good thing.)

Why shouldn't they have gotten out before the complete collapse of the floppy-drive market?

dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38462570

How many times is this one editor with a grudge going to post the same rumor-mongering?

This is pure rumor-mongering, about rumors that have been discussed to death here over the past week.

I don't want to say you should never do this.

But if you aren't writing a compiler or an embedded system, you should never do this.

Many of the "power users" were outright liabilities for Reddit, and they should consider their departure a good thing.

(from November 13)

It seems you have three choices:

1) Fire him. 2) Convince him to join another team within the company (which is presumably how he ended up in his current position). 3) Do the work to manage his work.

Nope.

I must object to this paragraph: "To be honest, I’m not particularly convinced by the analytic arguments above. It’s only by using real data that I can understand the problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect. So let’s have a look at some real numbers."

He then goes on to use synthetic data.

Beyond that dishonest slight of hand, this is in the category of "one thought experiment didn't prove the phenomenon exists, therefore it must not exist" logical errors.

A lot of these "disabilities" seem to be "I don't like going to work and can come up with a medicalized excuse for that which you aren't allowed to criticize".

No. This is a bad concept for a product. There is no situation where your business should be guessing people's genders at-scale: it is a recipe for getting things wrong in a way you will find embarrassing later on. If it matters, just ask.

No. No it isn't.

The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment".

Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about << alignment >> ".

This is insane. "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board".

First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense.

Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down, because that will stop AGI from being invented". Which is blatant nonsense; nothing they do will stop anyone else. (with the minimal exception that the drama they have incepted might make this holiday week a complete loss for productivity).

Third: in general, "publishing scholarly articles claiming the company is bad" is a good reason to remove someone from the board of a company. Some vague (and the fact that nobody will own up to anything publicly proves it is vague) ideological battle isn't a good enough rationale for the exception to a rule that suggests that her leaving the board soon would be a good idea.

I applied today; hopefully it will be a short wait. (and, hopefully, they won't hold my "I don't know what business I can build on this until after I try it" opinion against me)

"if they were mostly written by his secretary then Stanford wouldn't have paid to have them archived." - that is straight-up incorrect. Archiving emails is very cheap. And the redactions look to have been done programmatically.

This appears to be a reference to https://epadd.stanford.edu/epadd/collection-detail?collectio... - a collection of "Don Knuth" emails.

The public versions are very redacted, but: 1) they seem to all be from his secretary, not him 2) most of the messages are not dictation or direct copies of messages Knuth wrote elsewhere.

The same article was posted here yesterday.

And it is pure mumbo-jumbo; I haven't talked to anyone and I could have told you "Microsoft has a legal team that will be looking into this", which is all the article actually says.