staticman2

For translating webnovels My preference is Opus, followed By Gemini, followed by GPT 5.

This is based on informally comparing samples and counting annoyingly big enough to distract the reader mistakes rather than the error rate overall.

GPT 5 seems to be worse at webnovel translation than 4o or 4.1 was, oddly enough.

If Google is smart they'd ban Gemini access while leaving services like Gmail enabled because otherwise customers wouldn't trust them and would avoid Gemini.

I don't think there's any reports of banning from all Google services based on Gemini use.

New AI system doesn't preclude new models. I thought when GPT 5 launched and users hated it the speculation was GPT 5 was a cost cutting model and the routing engine was routing to smaller, specialized dumber models that cost less on inference?

It certainly was much dumber than 4o on Perplexity when I tried it.

Does it mean have agreed to lend them in a binding agreement that OpenAI can sue to enforce?

You are spreading misinformation when you say ACA doesn't cover childbirth.

If this was true it would be plastered in every newspaper for the last 15 years.

The courts never banned all entrance exams. Many employers still have entrance exams.

The robot suggested a coke zero because it was paid to by the Coca-Cola Company. Now you'll need to buy more coke zero to replace what you drank.

This is not a good distinction between modern and older TV.

In the past the note would have been "Include the line of dialogue so someone folding laundry can follow it."

Or "Include the line of dialogue so someone channel surfing who just started watching can follow the plot."

You keep using words like "Provider" and "security".

The words "provider" and "security" do not have specific meanings.

I'm practice this could describe anything from:

"I want a guy who is ripped like Conan the barbarian and beats the crap out of anyone who dares look at me funny"

to:

"I want to be a stay at home mom."

To:

"I want a guy with a job who splits rent with me."

This is from the evolutionary psychiatry book The Moral Animal:

>"What the theory of natural selection says, rather, is that people's minds were designed to maximize fitness in the environment in which those minds evolved. This environment is known as the EEA—the environment of evolutionary adaptation. Or, more memorably: the 'ancestral environment.'...

>"What was the ancestral environment like? The closest thing to a twentieth-century example is a hunter-gatherer society, such as the !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert in Africa, the Inuit (Eskimos) of the Arctic region, or the Ache of Paraguay.

>"Inconveniently, hunter-gatherer societies are quite different from one another, rendering simple generalization about the crucible of human evolution difficult. This diversity is a reminder that the idea of a single EEA is actually a fiction, a composite drawing; our ancestral social environment no doubt changed much in the course of human evolution. Still, there are recurring themes among contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, and they suggest that some features probably stayed fairly constant during much of the evolution of the human mind. For example: people grew up near close kin in small villages where everyone knew everyone else and strangers didn't show up very often. People got married—monogamously or polygamously—and a female typically was married by the time she was old enough to be fertile."

--

The idea that modern life is different is obvious.

I get the impression that there's some other conversation going on here that has nothing to do with evolution and you are not saying "lets all live in Igloos...".

You say it's hard to see why it's controversial.

Making claims about "evolution" of "women" without even demonstrating a passing familiarity with the (controversial!) field of evolutionary psychology is a choice.

Please engage in good faith.

I asked you how you determined "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?"

I took that to mean you were confident 0 out of several million people had lifelong alterations.

Any other interpretation of what you meant would suggest you are not responding to anything I wrote and simply writing non sequitors.

It seems to me you said something indefensible (0 out of 1 million people had permanent damage, there is no possibility you have data to show this) and are now trying to change the subject to something less insane (the typical patient has no permanent harm?)

Since PSSD wasn't recognized until 2019 I know you are full of hot air in suggesting if these drugs caused unusual problems we'd know about it by now:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/side-effects/201906/...

How did you determine that "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?

Someone literally just told you this happened to them, and your reaction was "I don't believe you," followed by a confident statistic you apparently invented.

Do you think if one person in a million took a drug and had their emotional system altered, a siren would go off? That the TV would be interrupted by an all-seeing oracle declaring a medical anomaly?

If a rare side effect occurs, it looks exactly like this: scattered individuals complaining on the internet.

You're misapplying the Carl Sagan popularized aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and apparently think the meaning of an aphorism can be determined by looking up one of the keywords in the dictionary, rather than, say, the Wikipedia article on the aphorism itself.

This isn't a good fit for the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Grandparent's report is hard to verify, not extraordinary.

These drugs are approved based on statistical safety profiles in limited trial populations, not on a scientific consensus that absolutely nobody on Earth will ever experience a unique adverse reaction.

Also, I never said that you, the reader, had an obligation to change your worldview based on Grandparent's report.

I've seen a post like this before on reddit.

We know SSRI's really do cause permanent sexual dysfunctional in a small minority of people, small enough that this side effect doesn't come up in traditional FDA tests.

If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.

Grandparent could be right or wrong about how the drug affected them, maybe their brain suffered from other issues and the timing of the medications was purelycoincidental, but if they are correct, your dismissive response is exactly what we'd expect given when they are saying sounds unusual/ improbable.

When you click the link you co-distribute a copy to your own computer.

If you were just passing by when a friend did it and read their computer screen I think you'd have a stronger argument.

Some of the earlier JRPGS were pretty unintuitive. Probably because the developers didn't really know what they were doing yet.

Mother 1 doesn't give you any plot guidance on what to do and is insanely overly difficult due to poor balancing.

I believe Phantasy Star 1 was designed to be played while using grap paper to map the dungeon. A modern re-release has the game do this for you automatically.

Even in Playstation era games like Suikoden there's this problem where if you put the game aside for a week and return to it and forget where to go next there's often no way to re-show the dialogue telling you where to go and no quest log.

Suikoden 2 makes you collect 108 characters for the good ending. You definetly would need to take notes to try to do this without a guide. But it's poorly designed because you can miss one of them due to RNG during a mandatory fight scene with no way to know this.

Gemini 1.5 Pro was definitely useful at OCR. I used it for that on the free tier.

I have an old MacBook Air from that era I could boot up. But don't the screens get dimmer over time? I guess it doesn't effect the functionality in any way.

I don't follow Anthropic marketing but the system prompt for Claude.AI says sounds like a partner/ chatbot to me!

"Claude provides emotional support alongside accurate medical or psychological information or terminology where relevant."

and

" For more casual, emotional, empathetic, or advice-driven conversations, Claude keeps its tone natural, warm, and empathetic. Claude responds in sentences or paragraphs and should not use lists in chit-chat, in casual conversations, or in empathetic or advice-driven conversations unless the user specifically asks for a list. In casual conversation, it’s fine for Claude’s responses to be short, e.g. just a few sentences long." |

They also prompt Claude to never say it isn't conscious:

"Claude engages with questions about its own consciousness, experience, emotions and so on as open questions, and doesn’t definitively claim to have or not have personal experiences or opinions."

I'm sure if you pick a sufficiently broad definition of pattern matching your argument is true by definition!

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the topic of discussions, which is the capabilities of LLMs, which may require a more narrow definition of pattern matching.

I don't think the bar exam is scientifically designed to measure intelligence so that was an odd example. Citing the bar exam is like saying it passes the "Game of thrones trivia" exam so it must be intelligent.

As for IQ tests and the like, to the extent they are "scientific" they are designed based on empirical observations of humans. It is not designed to measure the intelligence of a statistical system containing a compressed version of the internet.

That was certainly a bubble but I don't think pets.com was doing a research experiment.

From what I recall there were some biotech stocks in that era that do fit the bill.

I listen to web novels with Elevenlabs reader all the time (The 11 dollar a month unlimited plan). I love it.

When it's a foreign web novel with no English translation, I first translate the Web novel with Claude Sonnet.

That makes sense.

I will day that I'm struggling to align these survey questions with human nature as I understand it.

I have a friend who "wants kids" and two different women, when they reached a certain age in their 30s, signaled they wanted to marry him and have kids.

But they both exhibited red flags that caused him to decline. One woman didn't act like she liked him, even though she was also saying she wanted to settle down together.

The other woman was unwilling to discuss how they'd raise the children given the fact they were from different religious backgrounds.

Given he's now in his 40s he'll likely never have kids.

I suppose if he was super passionate about kids he'd enter an unhappy marriage and make sure he got some kids out of it, before possibly ending up divorced.

So wanting children was more a conditional thing than a binary thing, and I don't know if these surveys can capture that.

Thanks for sharing that.

I'm not sure if you cited that because it's the first to come up in a web search but the fact that "undecided" was not an option is a red flag in my mind.

What do you think of this one:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-you...

"When asked about having children, 51% of young adults who are not parents say they would like to have children one day. Three-in-ten say they’re not sure, and 18% say they don’t want to have children."

When I brought up melatonin with a sleep doctor a few years ago she agreed with my understanding that given a lack of uncontroversial studies its unclear whether it is a health risk or not.

"the argument that human beings are computational has been alive in philosophy since the 1940’s brother"

I recently read a little philosophy on this, to say humans are "computational" you first have to define what you mean by "computational". Depending on the definition you employ, you are either making a wacky claim, a controversial claim, or a noncontroversial claim.

Since you provide no definition, you are saying nothing at all.

The discourse that comes up in AI topics seems more glib language games than actual concern over human nature, computational or otherwise.

>That I wouldn’t treat a human like an LLM is completely irrelevant to the topic.

The fact you wouldn't treat a human like an LLM suggests your constant claim of similarity is not something you actually believe.

The question is "What do you think is the ideal number of children for a family to have? ?"

Not "Do you want a family?" Or "Do you want children?"

So it seems to me it will not measure the preferences of Americans very well. Since it did not ask about those preferences.

I'm saying you'd object to being treated like an LLM and don't really have conviction when you make these claims.

I'd also say stringing together A.I. buzzwords (input output) to describe humans isn't really an argument so much as what philosophers call a category error.