BobbyJo

5 ms·

1.
by BobbyJo 8d ago
Am I the only one with a deep aversion to the keyword "let"?
2.
by BobbyJo 10d ago
> presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task because it can incorporate cross-domain knowledge and apply it in a re
3.
by BobbyJo 10d ago
> an AGI, all of this should be a cakewalk, trained as it were to surpass human capability in any and every domain. AGI != ASI. You are confusing the two.
4.
by BobbyJo 10d ago
My point was you are misunderstanding G, or at least applying it erroneously here. Being good at chess is not a generalization of any other body of knowledge, it is a rigorous set of rules. The only way to be good at chess is to practice ch
5.
by BobbyJo 10d ago
I suck at chess. Are you saying I can't be intelligent?
6.
by BobbyJo 11d ago
I don't think the agreements played any important role outside of limiting tests. I highly doubt agreements about nukes in particular have meaningfully curbed risks of their use. MAD has played a much larger role in that, and MAD is ki
7.
by BobbyJo 11d ago
This confuses me to no end as well. The socialists are fighting against the magic socialism machine.
8.
by BobbyJo 13d ago
> This has been the case for around 2 years now, more reliably - a year. I have to disagree with this pretty strongly. Opus 4.5 needed a lot of handholding not to work itself into a corner pretty quickly. Fable I basically never need to
9.
by BobbyJo 14d ago
"Can be used as a weapon" applies to nearly everything, and ceases to have any meaning. Even on a tank, they aren't considered a weapon, only the whole take together is the weapon, or the cannon alone.
10.
by BobbyJo 16d ago
I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you are making the claim that Agent Orange was indeed a chemical weapon, I'd disagree, but I think either perspective has points.
11.
by BobbyJo 16d ago
Is your argument that the resulting birth defects were intentional? If not, I'm not sure where you're going with your response.
12.
by BobbyJo 16d ago
I'm not arguing we were the good guys in Vietnam, just that calling Agent Orange a chemical weapon is a shaky claim. Not sure why you're putting so many other words in my mouth.
13.
by BobbyJo 16d ago
> is a little pedantic, they used agent orange to kill foliage to kill people... Is a wheel a weapon because a tank uses it? I wouldn't consider the difference pedantry.
14.
by BobbyJo 16d ago
1) The US is not the only country to deploy chemical weapons. Are you forgetting all of WW1? It's the whole reason chemical weapons are a no-no now. 2) The US didn't use chemicals weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange was used to kill
15.
by BobbyJo 19d ago
> We must pursue advancements in AI to protect us against advancements in AI Is this not true of technology as a whole? Very little of technology's breadth exists at the human interface. Most of it is made specifically to interface
16.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Oh, you're someone else. Now I'm just confused why you responded to my question that was directed at someone else.
17.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
PPP is what matters financially, add on ethnic homogeny and familial presence in a culture that values both and staying becomes a lot more compelling.
18.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
You can't ignore the impact of China also becoming a better place to live as well. China is a different place no than it was 20 years ago, and the need to go overseas anywhere is probably felt less today than back then.
19.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage? That's plainly false, as that's just no
20.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
The arguments can be the same but have entirely different hidden variables that make it fine to use the argument in one context and not the other. Also, this ignores that the government works for citizens, no matter their race. Promoting ra
21.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Is your argument that the world economy is running so close to theoretical maximum efficiency that AI can't improve it?
22.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
I got a 32gb M4 macbook air with the lower CPU core count, right before things got stupid. Can't even buy that skew now.
23.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Only if you hold the view that AI will not lead to use using energy more efficiently.
24.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Because they need SS and medicare, which is most spending at this point. The only choice in the last 40 years, that would have actually decreased spending, was Rand Paul, and he got crushed.
25.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
I implore you to simply talk to a few conservatives living normal lives in the real world. I am related to many and grew up in the south. I assure you, most are not nefarious. > They ignore other activities that might be troublesome. Suc
26.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
That's a false dichotomy.
27.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
I use Claude and I find that it speaks in a very obfuscated manner when explaining things. It seems to make up jargon as it goes on top of spending a lot of tokens dancing around a point. I often find myself having to ask it to rephrase thi
28.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Economic regulations affect everyone. I had to fill out a tax form because I had to resell tickets to a convert I was unable to go to. I don't feel sorry that people sending money over the border have to do the same now.
29.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Me and a Cofounder are building something along these lines on top of K8s. The wisdom that "if give the LLM clear boundaries and you get better results" definitely holds IME, even with frontier models like fable. It's impossi
30.
by BobbyJo 1mo ago
Could this be because US gov healthcare spending takes place mostly via Medicare, which is specifically for people 65+?

More ›