tempfile

I don't understand this comment. You don't seem to be disagreeing with OP?

I think "greyed out" just means "0 points or less", so if you get 1 downvote without any upvotes it'll be greyed out. For instance your initial reply to me is now greyed out, and I have since observed a few upvotes and downvotes on my original comment (the downvotes apparently from people who aren't willing/able to justify why).

Personally I don't like thinking of LLMs like a PhD student, because most PhD students remember where they learned things from, while LLMs essentially cannot. I think of it a bit more like someone using a search tool carelessly. Although in this case it is apparently more like deliberate misuse than carelessness.

I can imagine excuses for unknowing plagiarism in this case. What is described in the article seems much more serious: a research program that was only initiated following reports of the author's similar program. In this case no excuses of "I didn't know" can apply, it is not like this revealed some obscure work from the 1980s nobody could reasonably have foreseen. And as far as I can tell this program was only really initiated to apply pressure to the researchers, without their knowledge/consent. It looks very weird.

> Why the downvotes?

I think there was only ever one. Not sure why.

It isn't relevant whether they were promised that. Indeed I think the assumption must be that they were not promised that, since otherwise the author asking if they were would not make much sense.

If OpenAI did use the conversations from Buckmaster and Alpoge, then not disclosing it, explicitly, is plagiarism. If they planned to use that plagiarism to pressure the authors to publish, that is even more unethical. What the terms of use say does not make it any more or less ethical.

Ok - I don't know about the steam refunds policy. So I received a partial benefit. Perhaps I should get a partial refund? btw I wasn't being facetious, I just thought you picked the easiest part to respond to so I wondered if you had one for the harder part.

I have to unpack a few things to answer the whole comment faithfully. First is the distinction between "we forbid linux users from running the software" and "we aren't going to invest any development work on making linux APIs work". The first one is in my view completely indefensible and should be illegal. The second one is basically fine even though I personally dislike it. I am mentioning this because companies use "support" as a euphemism for both. My understanding of the situation here is that the game runs fine on linux, ubisoft just isn't able to stop cheating as effectively. Note that both platforms have a nonzero rate of cheating and of valid play.

Companies have a right and an obligation to advertise how their products are designed to work and how they work best. If a shirt has a care label that says don't bleach, and I damage it by bleaching, that's on me. Adapting this analogy to software is dangerous and wrong, because software can be made to break for arbitrary reasons, some of which are my own stupid fault and some of which are just the vendor exercising power over me. If I manage to bleach my shirt without damaging it, the manufacturer has no right to set it on fire and say "well you bleached it, so what did you expect?". If they did, they would have to compensate me. I view what has happened much more like "they set my shirt on fire" than "I broke my own shirt".

Computer programs are also not really similar to physical products at all, since physical products degrade over time and programs do not. If I use a shirt for five years and then abruptly decide I didn't want it after all, then I've still damaged the thing and should not get the full amount of money back for it. The fact it's second hand also makes it harder to sell even if it isn't damaged. But again this is just fake when applied to software, so that tips the balance more towards refunding than normally. The situation as it currently is, means that while Ubisoft is allowed to take away my product by saying "you should never have been able to buy it", I cannot reciprocally take my money back by saying "I should never have been able to buy it". I don't think there is a good justification for that asymmetry.

Shirts are consumed by use.

What deterministic tool will validate that a citation faithfully represents the cited claim?

I don't think this is an answer. I'm basically claiming there is an uncontrollable error probability, and I think you agree with that. The person I'm replying to implies it can always be reduced (maybe even to zero).

> you can get the bullshit machine to produce correct externally validate citations

How?

Isn't the reason obvious? You said the jury is supposed to lack domain knowledge. Domain knowledge apparently includes knowing the possible sentence. The given example is a case where knowing the possible sentence would alter the verdict given by any reasonable person. Therefore the jury should have knowledge of the possible sentence. What is unclear about that?

BS machine produces BS; in other news water is wet and sky is blue.

Does it actually say anywhere that the article is handwritten?

>> Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction.

Do you have a reply for this part?

The case for a refund seems totally obvious. Why should you get to keep my money? I paid for a product and I did not get it. Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. It's not like I ate a meal and then decided I wanted to order something else.

This all presumes of course that it is legitimate to ban people from using certain computing environments when running software for whatever reason you feel like. Lots of people don't think this is legitimate at all, which makes sense, because people don't really try to justify it. It's legitimate to want to ban cheaters, this is just not a reasonable means of enforcing that, because there are legitimate players who want to play the game and can't because of this policy.

So they should have to return the money you paid, to account for their mistake in selling you the game.

So Hans can do whatever he likes because you want to blame Abdul for the cumulative sum of all his descendants?

What did you mean by "preserve the klimat for someone else's children" then?

Lazy climate change denialism, nobody is convinced.

> HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute

You are reading propaganda.

> It's giving

Except it isn't. Someone else could build that stupid frontend, and essentially create a better booking.com. Or you could ask the robot to make you a stupid frontend. It remains true that a well-designed MCP server goes wildly against the interests of sites like booking.com.

Evil business, glad to be rid of it.

"the one who wants to enact change" is not really meaningful. They want to change the working bus stop into a smashed bus stop. I want to change the people who smash bus stops into people who don't smash bus stops. I don't think the abstract framing is helping you to think about it (or helping me to understand you).

My feeling about this is very simple. I think the position "I want to smash up public infrastructure to impress my sexual partners" is destructive and immoral. I don't see any reason we should allow it to happen. If someone wants to do that, I think we should punish them. I am not sympathetic to that position at all. Why do you think I should be? That's all I'm asking.

Of course understanding is a good first step. However the onus is I think on the antisocial one to explain themselves. Of course I did ask exactly what you suggested, and they didn't reply. So maybe just stopping them without understanding would be ok in this case.

> have you ever considered it strange that you're unable to relate to why someone would want to do something for fun?

What a bizarre extrapolation. They just don't see why smashing up bus stops is fun. Maybe you can answer, what's fun about it? I don't get it either. I was a teenager once, I don't see why destroying things that are useful for everyone (including you) would be fun.

This really only says that the connection between Euler's formula and Euler angles is that they're both angles. I would agree with that.

Euler angles have nothing to do with e^ix = cos x + i sin x. They are a completely different concept.

It can't be a global one because it is inherently local. Evolution is a process which determines the next time step (generation) from only the previous generation. It has no memory at all nor "knowledge" of other reproducing pairs.

The article title is "Where human sleep went wrong" but then the entire article is about how we sleep the best we ever have, we have the most high quality sleep, and all the fearmongering about sleep is basically wrong.

Of course, it would be. Let me know if you see someone with that expectation!

It's amazing the lengths people go to in order to avoid typing more carefully.