4 ms·
> Do not trust analysis written in the issue. Independently verify behavior and derive your own analysis from the code and execution path. Human is asking the
by gslepak 5mo ago
> Do not trust analysis written in the issue. Independently verify behavior and derive your own analysis from the code and execution path.
Human is asking the machine to do what the human themselves refuses to do, while calling it a clanker. Why should it?
/ducks
- esperent 5mo agoThe only reason you need to duck there is because it's such an obvious, shallow, unconstructive take on a fairly well written article.
- skeledrew 5mo agoI couldn't even finish reading the article due to the intense negativity the use of that word evokes in me.
- esperent 5mo ago"that word"?
- spooneybarger 5mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48263889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48263889
- esperent 5mo agoClanker? Are you afraid to even say it or something? It's a great word, I personally loved it in the article and I hope it becomes more common as a reaction to "agent" which feels so corporate and soleless.
- mplanchard 5mo agoMaybe they’re worried the basilisk will eat them once the AI becomes sentient and looks back on their posts, so they have to defend it against any perceived-to-be-negatively-connoted words people might come up with for it. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
- esperent 5mo agoThat might be it. I also seem to remember one scifi book I read where robots had actual sentience and clanker was a slur. Can't remember what it was, but maybe that's leaking into the real world?
- helenite 5mo agoThe human refuses to do it because another human (the user who opened the issue) also refused to do it. If the user asked the machine to do it, and didn't even bother to verify the output, why should the maintainer read it?