44 karma · joined May 8, 2024
Like he said, "It's getting tedious to see the hysterics."
Why didn't Trump seize power during multiple key opportunities in his term (soon after inauguration when his supporters and his rhetoric were at their most right-wing and Republicans held everything, or during the pandemic)? Why is Trump such a fan of Israel and their American counterparts?
I think uncle H would not approve of your comparison.
What I mean is, all laws are fake, but while we have to follow some collective hallucination about magic words giving people authority—to keep society together—the specific delusion that we should enforce artificial scarcity by extending monopolies to patterns of information is uniquely silly.
I scrolled dozens of posts without seeing a single mention of this—the biggest (certainly the most interesting) LLM news recently. When something big happens with Claude or ChatGPT there are more posts, but nobody calls that “spam”.
Anyways, if you were actually following locallama (a subreddit about running LLMs locally, where this is by far the biggest and most relevant news topic currently) you’d have seen this post https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/s/Yay5njt963 where a guy is working on running deepseek on llamacpp and demonstrates ~8tk/s using a cpu.
Someone who would use this obvious of a red herring is dishonest. The point was not that the censorship is identical, but that the effect of censorship is in both cases to lobotomize the models.
It would be nice to see that system rearranged. Even if there’s more art, money could instead fund artistic ventures people actually want rather than keeping powerful entities afloat/entrenched.
Maybe the number of major corporations decreases (towards a permanent handful) as the number of paid artists increases (towards basically everyone who could desire payment for art that’s actually in demand).
The permanent, irreversible demographic shift that conveniently favors Dem politics is only one of the many, many problems caused by turning a blind eye to unprecedented hordes of inherently law-disregarding third-worlders taking advantage of our weak border enforcement.
Example: if your real max is 60, but your watch says 50, you may be wondering why hard training isn’t increasing it.
Another example: if your real max is 35 but your watch says 45, you may misinterpret the signal when it jumps to 55 relatively quickly after a few weeks of hard-ish work.
Plus, if the value is significantly inaccurate then who knows what else is inaccurate about it? I appreciate that Apple have put effort into making it accurate.
1. Limited space: - Back seats only have room for one prisoner - Officers can't comfortably get in and out with duty belts on - Cramped cabin causes duty belts and vests to jut into passenger seat
2. Modification issues: - Few shops can modify Teslas for police use - Long wait times for modifications (months) - Modifications exacerbate space constraints
3. Charging infrastructure concerns: - Unclear how/where officers would charge vehicles - Potential security issues with charging suspects' transport vehicles at public stations
4. Safety concerns: - No engine block to use as cover in firefights - Low profile limits off-road use and maneuverability
5. "Smart" features interfering with police work: - Autopilot causing delays when shifting into drive - Automatic stopping when pulling over - Complicated process to dim lights at night - Issues with proximity locking, sleep mode, and self-closing doors
6. Maintenance challenges: - Require Tesla technicians for many repairs - Long out-of-service times for repairs
7. Cost issues: - Expensive to transport for modifications - Limited vendor options for outfitting increases costs
8. Not designed for police utility needs: - Lack of storage space for equipment - No easy way to transport items like bicycles and shopping carts
They mentioned that other brands weren’t even an option to due to various reasons, so it’s weird that they framed it as a hit piece on Tesla rather than a failure of the EV market.
The piece ends with the F-150 Lightning portrayed as the savior (in a department that had the foresight to install chargers in their lot), but they don’t draw attention to the fact it has most of the same issues cited as complaints in the Tesla section (need to use chargers on long-distance road trips, can’t hide behind an engine block).
The linked article also doesn’t mention any of the positives cited in the article that it’s referencing.
But, you know, any opportunity to shit on something related to Elon Musk…
There isn’t an OS that’s good to go out of the box. But the Apple hardware on a MacBook is completely unparalleled; people acting like there’s anything like it on the windows side are delusional. As are the apps (from the store, from the internet, from GitHub, and from brew). The quality is just much better, and so is the likelihood of finding an existing app/utility for a niche use case. Many packages on Linux are just binaries without even so much as a TUI, let alone a GUI (NordVPN). Oh ya Brew, also substantially more pain-free than other package manager experiences.
That’s almost the exact opposite of the truth, and your example demonstrates his point. Almost none of the commands—let alone their parameters—are explained, beyond a high level summary of what the goal of the step is.
Is this phenomenon the explanation for why almost all documentation sucks? Experienced developers delude themselves into imagining that their docs have a level of detail and explanation that they simply just don’t have?
- Mine prepends the result with the output of running `tree -I node_modules --noreport` before any other content. This informs the LLM of the structure of the project, which leads to other insights like it will know which frameworks and paradigms your project uses without you needing to explain that stuff. - Mine prepends the contents of each included file with “Contents of relative/path/to/file/from/root/of/project/filename.ts:” to reinforce the context and the file’s position in the tree.
I know you hate Elon musk—I don’t care for him much nor do I harbor animosity towards him—but a rescue is a rescue lmao. You guys would never be this ridiculous if the situation wasn’t politically charged, or if the circumstances favored your political leaning (almost certainly progressive left).
ChatGPT describes this as "A rich, deep, and smooth tone that is pleasant to listen to for extended periods. This often comes from good control over pitch and timbre, creating a voice that resonates well."
If you watch youtube, voices in this theme are the Pirate Software guy, and the voice of The Infographics show.
There are similar voices for every gender, race, and nationality. As an American, Morgan Freeman comes to mind as a comfy black, masculine narrator voice.
All this is to lead up to my point that companies engage in a meticulous science when deciding who should voice roles, and especially when the product itself is literally just a synthetic voice and they near limitless capacity to shape it.
With that in mind, here are the voices that OpenAI wants us to hear:
Breeze: ambiguous gender, white, feminine
Juniper: female, black Maple: female, white Spruce: male, black, masculine Arbor: male, Australian, masculine Sol: female, white Ember: male, black, less masculine Cove: male, Sal Khan, less masculine Vale: female, British
The only one that could be considered a narrator/radio voice is unambiguously black (great if that's your preference). It just seems weird that they would intentionally exclude a masculine white male, and that sucks because those are always my preferred voices when I'm looking for audiobooks or choosing a computer voice. It sucks in particular because OpenAI is not staffed by dumb people—this exclusion was intentional, and that's obnoxious.
My last note on the Advanced Voice feature is that it makes my phone HOT within a few seconds, which will limit it's usefulness on sunny days when I need hands-free use the most while the phone is mounted to my dash. This is when the device is already liable to overheat (display forced to dim, lagging due to shutting down CPU cores, and in the worst case the phone shutting off and refusing to work until it gets cooler).
1. Almost NOBODY, I mean literally nobody I've ever met that uses LLMs besides myself, uses the paid version. It shocked me to learn people are actually USING the free version. These people are commonly of low intelligence, exactly the sort of people who cheat. Cheaters are using the shittiest models lmao, and many of them are using some knockoff on data-harvesting websites whose models are even worse than the free ChatGPT.
2. AI skeptics are frequently old people, and in any case are so skeptical that they formed an opinion about all AI services based on extremely limited experimenting with the free ChatGPT a whole year ago. They don't know about Claude 3.5 Sonnet, they've never compared it to GPT-4 (may 2024 version, API not the chatbot) let alone to GPT-4o. There's absolutely no way they know about Gemini 1.5 Pro 0826 via AIstudio.
These people have no capacity to recognize that AI services are making huge leaps in capability and the quality of outputs (ESPECIALLY if iterated on and hand-held). They say things like "the thing about ChatGPT is that it's not very good at producing essays".
How about this? I have a 4.0 in college. I never cheated because I don't need to. I've taken some intelligence tests (and learned that some standardized tests are essentially a proxy for intelligence testing) and learned that I'm kind of smart—OK whatever, this is to establish that I don't need to cheat. Even when ChatGPT was new and not very good (albeit, the original GPT4 which was decently capable), I was able to use it as a writing aid (you give it the assignment and it generates an outline, but then you feed it back the assignment and its outline, and have it generate the first section, then you iterate on that section, then you do all the sections, then you feed it the assignment and the completed essay and iterate on THAT, then you change a lot of the parts so it seems like a human wrote it) and earned an award for the best essay the department had seen in a long time. Again, that was when the AIs were shit compared to now.
People who think AIs are not capable are just a little out of touch, they're using them wrong or uncreatively, or they're not using them at all, or they're using the free version, or they're judging AIs by the results of low intelligence people who use the free version.
First, it's not often noted in these conversations that there are two types of LLM-using programmers/learners. One kind uses it to radically accelerate the learning process, the other kind uses it so they don't have to learn. Actually, make that three kinds—the third (probably a subset of the second) has extremely low creativity and can't understand how to use LLM tools effectively, and so can't guide their output effectively, or wrangle it after the fact.
I suspect your comment is referring to PRs by the latter kind. This is not a problem with LLMs, or with people using them to enhance productivity.
Second, what is your realistic proposal for how to confront the reality that we're accelerating through irreversible technology-assisted change?
Just like, apart from catastrophes, there's no longer a concern that we won't have massive factory farms, or that we won't have access to calculators, or that programmers won't have access to Google, there's no future where programmers wont have increasingly helpful and capable AI tools.
There will always be low IQ, low performance individuals. Can you recognize that the problem—as always—is those people, not the technology?
- LLMs are getting better. That's a reality LLM haters need to contend with. The versions that didn't solve your one issue perfectly 2 years ago simply aren't in the rotation any longer. A major release with significant improvements is a nearly monthly occurrence. - I don't know how to convince anyone of this, but the hallucinations have literally zero impact. Not only are they rare and getting rarer, but because you can always spot a hallucination you learn to ignore them. - As someone who's a huge fan of flashcards, you're wrong that this is worse than making your own cards. Instead of spending hours and hours making cards, those hours are spent actively engaging with and absorbing more material.
I can't speak to OP's product, but with my system it's the closest thing I'm aware of to downloading information directly into the brain.
The early 20th century was a flashpoint where rising powers decided who would become the global superpower.
Agree or not about antisemitism and nationalism, both of those were enormously popular, mainstream things. It wasn't weird or fringe to adopt an national ideology character used by those things. So much of Europe (centered around Germany) acting on those views isn't the cause of their downfall—on the contrary, they were convinced (and these were not dumb people who couldn't see patterns) that such things would strengthen their people and their homes.
So obviously that isn't what "screwed it all up". What screwed it all up was the existence of other rising powers and the timing of it all. Their rise was threatened by a strong Germany. This is all completely mundane, predictable global politics.
The rest, about who was "evil" and "the bad guys" is almost entirely fiction written by the victors—also, coincidentally, completely mundane and predictable.