z3c0

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?

I mean, I agree with your general point that copyright might need to be reconsidered, but this doesn't seem like an attempt to reconsider it. It's rather transparently enabling further cronyism.

Never gotten any emails from lawyers, I see.

Copyright laws are heavily enforced, only selectively.

I believe that machines could potentially be conscious, and don't buy for a second that chess algorithms or LLMs could be themselves.

You're correct, and I've long been aware. I just... won't.

Principles haven't done much good so far, but my sleep is bad enough as is.

Interestingly (and anecdotally), as a 10-year+ experienced college dropout, I still see challenges getting hired for jobs that list degrees as a requirement. The only time I get a call back on "front door" applications is with the fateful addendum of "OR relevant work experience". (I wonder if agents and their lack of human discretion is amplifying this.) The article's assertion that a college degree still offers an edge beyond entry level still seems very much true.

Have you worked for corporations long?

> their product is struggling to do your daily job functions for you

So what's the value prop?

And highlighting a disconnect in the developer community. Some of us are okay with unnecessary overhead for quick results. I always felt gross dealing with Electron apps, but they're popular for a reason.

Raising the floor is an equality of outcome. It is arguably equality of oppprtunity too, but only when ignoring intergenerational wealth as a factor. Your kids affordíng school is your outcome, their oppprtúnity.

Who is included on the mailing list. Florida is asking to be included.

You seem to deeply misunderstand how juries work. It's an assortment of peoples for a reason.

Yes, actually, a bunch of people of the same religion (cult, really), university, and now, organized theft, are indeed guilty by association. I'm glad you see it too.

The conundrum of "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity" hinges on that core question. It's weird, and possible contradictory, to see a policy claiming to attempt both.

Most would define a "fair" opportunity as everyone getting the same chances to succeed, but a "fair" outcome would segment on merit. If angling towards fair outcomes, there's usually less uproar over lifting the floor (e.g financial aid), versus lowering the ceiling (e.g. limitations on admissions based on ethnic or financial background).

Not even getting into the semantics of what one could mean by "productive", that sounds like a bleak existence.

We told them to find probable cause, so they found a way to mine it.

Nazi Germany wasn't chaos, just a lot of people following "cut-and-dry" protocol.

It's an abstraction for you, not the rest of that developer's team, who have to reproduce the same solution even after said developer has "won the lottery", so-to-speak.

inb4: "Don't worry, just use GPT to make the docs"

Given how many people attempted to date their computer after ChatGPT launched, I don't even want to imagine what this technology has in store.

It did, verifiably here. Based on their own marketing, I thought it an alternative to Codex, not Codium.

Knowledge of this setting has shifted my perspective considerably.

edit: not enough to ditch Sublime, however.

Well, bullshit tends to be more bullish, and it's not the bears keeping money on the table.

Not to mention, it doesn't actually create the productivity promised at the lower rates promised. The most enthusiastic proponents are middle-management, not actual doers.

It's an expensive route to mediocrity, which doesnt offer an edge in a market where everyone is using the same snakeoil.

This study considers caffeine concumption outside of coffee, so an alternative caffeine source might be worth looking into. That was my takeaway, at least. I also drink espresso, for the caffeine and the noticable ease on my gut compared to drip or pressed coffee.

"photographic" memory.

I can't tell if it's a joke or not.

This might be the first time I've seen a HN comment in a GPT thread that actually reflects what the average business user sees in GPT products.

They don't do the job, reliably or well. No amount of wishful thinking or extra tokens will change that.

They amortized the creation of corpuses with trainable features, not the myriad of methods that can categorize text with a success rate in the levels required by high-stakes industries.

Ha! To think that we're finally back to asking ourselves why we are using generative models for categorization and extraction. I wonder how much money has collectively been wasted by companies wittling away at square pegs.

You are correct, on all counts. (See my response to the other commenter.) I was more harsh than I should have been. You're correct that it's not the most advanced of DOOM implementations, but I'd hate to hinder DOOM-ifying things with pedantry. (So long as one isn't simply piping a DOOM binary to bash, of course.)

You know what, I stand corrected. I missed this portion of play.sh: https://github.com/xsawyerx/curl-doom/blob/ae1edb82e48efcd2d...

I'm not changing where I stand on piping to bash.

Thank you for the laugh. Some probably need to be reminded of Sam Altman's roots, as much I detest what he's done to the word "open".