Ajedi32

28 ms·

601.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
They're trained to be sycophants as a side effect of the same reinforcement learning process that trains them to dutifully follow all user instructions. It's hard (though not impossible) to teach one without the other, especially
602.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
That seems contrary to my experience. Large, powerful bureaucracies are often highly incompetent in ways that clearly work against their own interests. If it were merely a choice they wouldn't choose to be incompetent in those ways. I
603.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but I personally find these "but you theoretically could have done even more to prevent this"-type arguments to be a little dubious in cases where the harm was caused primarily by operator ne
604.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
The fact that Tesla doesn't have a process for making crash data available to investigators is pretty indefensible IMO, given they're retaining that data for their own analysis. Would be one thing if they didn't save the data
605.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
You say you're anti-DRM but that sounds like a very pro-DRM stance to me. Within the bounds of personal use, copyright holders should have no say over what people do with media after it is sold. That goes equally when the entity that b
606.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I'm not saying companies should follow different rules than people, I'm saying the rules as written make no sense. This particular example just happens to make that fact more readily apparent due to the sheer scale of the needless
607.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
The process of repeatedly re-scanning used books benefits the authors? how?
608.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Because company A needs to scan the books, then company B wants to train their AI so they need to scan the same books, then company C wants to train their AI so they need to scan the same books... etc. It would be one thing if they were buy
609.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
That's very interesting, because it totally makes sense legally, but the practical effect is ludicrously stupid. The law is effectively forcing companies to spend millions re-scanning the same books over and over for no reason. It&#x27
610.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Probably because maps apps can do useful things like tell the light whether you're intending to turn right or not.
611.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Very glad to hear that. If the apps are made by commercial entities then presumably I get a choice of which one to use, which means in the absence of any artificial barriers I can choose one that respects my privacy (possibly something open
612.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I can think of a few ways to do this in a privacy-preserving way. The traffic light doesn't need to know your location or who you are, just whether there is a car approaching. But yeah good chance whoever designed this didn't pu
613.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Comparable systems based on inductive loops work during the day. A design based on detecting headlights wouldn't. Software/compute is cheap and as you said reliability is not a safety concern.
614.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I'm guessing they wouldn't need to fiddle with an app; the software would just automatically signal their approach based on GPS/navigation info. I agree theoretically a camera + machine-learning based system could work just a
615.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Presumably the app would be able to signal the presence of an approaching car from a much longer distance than the inductive loops you typically see these systems, ensuring cars don't even need to slow down when approaching the interse
616.
Firefox Semantic History Search(community.mozilla.org)
1 points by Ajedi32 1y ago|0 comments
617.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Demand induces higher prices which induces supply. So yes this is 100% solvable by normal market forces, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be very expensive for everyone involved.
618.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
That's the exact opposite of what the term "hallucination" is intended to imply. If it knew what was real and produced the wrong result anyway that would be a lie, not a hallucination. I've heard the term "confabula
619.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I love the analogy of the Mirror of Erised. Obviously not quite the same thing, but similar tendencies, and with similar dangers. Very fitting!
620.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
LLMs don't have a subjective experience, so they can't actually give subjective opinions. Even if you are actually able to phrase your questions 100% neutrally so as not to inject your own bias into the conversation, the answers y
621.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
That's bizarre. I wonder if the use of AI was actually a contributing factor to his psychotic break as the article implies, or if the guy was already developing schizophrenia and the chat bot just controlled what direction he went afte
622.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I think the giant red "DANGER!" makes it pretty clear the sign is not talking about such a superficial risk.
623.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
If it's hot enough to burn your lips it's hot enough to burn your skin. Generally coffee is brewed at close to boiling temperature; it doesn't get much hotter than that. If it's freshly brewed, it's necessarily goin
624.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
There was certainly no willfulness involved in this situation, unless you mean to say they willfully made the coffee hot. My argument is that both of those things are true. Willfully serving hot coffee is not wrong at all, and a punitiv
625.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
Would you feel the same way if you had been the one to serve me a hot drink and the court ordered you to pay me $480,000 in punitive damages because I spilled it on myself? The law is supposed to be blind (impartial), the fact that McDonald
626.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
It can and will if you spill enough of it in the wrong place, regardless of whether it was made by McDonald's or an electric kettle. This is true of any hot beverage or even soup.
627.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
My point is I don't think McDonalds needs to be legally dissuaded from serving hot coffee in the first place, certainly not by a court with no law making powers. The minutia of the legal statues aren't relevant to my argument. I&#
628.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
That's a fair criticism of the media headlines, but the final ruling of $480,000 just in punitive damages ($1M inflation-adjusted) is still pretty ridiculous given, again, that handling too-hot-to-immediately-drink beverages is a nor
629.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
I see, so it was the jury that was responsible for the ridiculous ruling, not the judge. My mistake, I misread. Definitely seems like there were some systemic or possibly cultural issues at play here.
630.
by Ajedi32 1y ago
> knew about the dangers and repeatedly chose to do literally nothing about it The dangers of... hot coffee? Yeah, everyone knows that. That's exactly why they shouldn't have lost to the extent that they did. It's tragic f

More ›