NateEag

4 ms·

1.
by NateEag 7d ago
There's a crucial distinction between "can't sue you" and "would likely lose the case". You need to have enough money to actually survive the lawsuit, even if it's a slam-dunk to win (and they almost never
2.
by NateEag 7d ago
I don't think that holds at all. There are so many variables that go into upvoting and downvoting, and we can't even see the actual scores on HN posts. The data you refer to isn't available, AFAIK, and even if it were we&#x27
3.
by NateEag 8d ago
For those of us who are aphantasiac, it is not possible to remember what we have seen ourselves. The camera and sketchpad are the only options we have.
4.
by NateEag 8d ago
Yes, in a huge crowd of people, you will get differing opinions. Do you have any other obvious facts you'd like to pretend are somehow relevant?
5.
by NateEag 8d ago
> humans take responsibility for the failure the same way they take responsibility of a photocopy is too dark. You mean, they notice it's too dark right after making it, change the settings, do it again, and give you the good copy?
6.
by NateEag 8d ago
For sure. But they do learn and improve. The models don't (yet).
7.
by NateEag 8d ago
And when they do, you can train them or fire them, and they learn not to do it. LLMs change not a whit, and there's no one to take responsibility for the failure (and thus no way to fix it). As the new variation on the old theme has it
8.
by NateEag 10d ago
> it's a lot more often targeted at Microsoft and Google software than at "vibe coded slop". What makes you confident the Microsoft and Google software isn't vibecoded slop? Certainly Microsoft has made a lot of noise
9.
by NateEag 14d ago
I'm not a mathematician, nor do I know almost anything about the discipline, but it sounds like maybe you do. What teams of people spent an entire career working together, focused entirely on Navier-Stokes or problems they suspected we
10.
by NateEag 14d ago
I wasn't trying to say that genAI won't beat humans. It arguably already has, much as that may fill me with horror and revulsion. I'm just trying to point out that economically, we have not yet reached the point where AI math
11.
by NateEag 14d ago
You would be wise to take the time to understand a perspective other than your own.
12.
by NateEag 14d ago
> No amount of hand-wringing is going to put the cat back in the bag. Adapt or perish. We can and have put some ugly, hissing, spitting cats into bags, some of which weren't even in one to begin with: * Chattel slavery is illegal, a
13.
by NateEag 14d ago
Tangent: > From my memory I think they said it took 88 hours to solve a Millenium Problem versus the decades of time humans have put into it. Keep in mind those ~88 hours were spread across ~10,000 simultaneous agent instances. So, rough
14.
by NateEag 15d ago
I'm a professional software developer. I would care if even these machines could only write articles, and I cared when software destroyed multiple forms of media delivery. I won't say it was all bad, unequivocally, but it made me
15.
by NateEag 15d ago
And then after a few years the moralists have to fight a world-spanning war to keep the pragmatists from completely eliminating people groups they don't like from the planet.
16.
by NateEag 15d ago
Sampling in music is long settled in the US - it is a copyright violation if not licensed, with the rare exception being cases where the sample is fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_eth..
17.
by NateEag 19d ago
This task is intentionally designed to ensure a human cannot do it. The initial scenario is utterly, insanely absurd to begin with, but I tried to go along in good faith and gave you the true answer. The result was a bad-faith rhetorical t
18.
by NateEag 20d ago
I suspect people who are putting out LLM "writing" are people who weren't trying to communicate in the first place. They were likely hunting for a better job, chasing the thrill of a million views, or similar - seeking a side
19.
by NateEag 20d ago
Okay, I reread the original post, and you're right. I had gotten my wires crossed and thought the OP was asking about a specific situation, but it was actually a question about the general pattern. A specific situation will often pass
20.
by NateEag 21d ago
The thing I trust the most to solve tricky problems reliably is a specific very skilled programmer I've known for twenty years. I wouldn't say he never makes mistakes, but his success rate is a damn sight better than any LLM I&#x2
21.
by NateEag 21d ago
In principle, yes, it may be possible. At present, we have no idea how to do that, so the answer is still "this is not knowable" in practice. Perhaps that changes tomorrow, or in a month, or a year from now, but until a theoretica
22.
by NateEag 22d ago
Maybe? Who knows? Since nobody has any remotely reliable way to understand why an LLM output the text it did, this is not knowable.
23.
by NateEag 24d ago
> Looks to me like I can run Claude Code without being able to afford my own datacenter. Until Anthropic bans you from using their data centers, at which point you cannot run Claude Code at all. Welcome to being a have-not (at least in a
24.
by NateEag 25d ago
They were not, obviously. However, there is very good evidence that IBM did sell calculation and bookkeeping hardware to Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis used it to organize the Holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
25.
by NateEag 27d ago
I don't make comments like the appalling one you quote, and I'm sorry someone said that to you. That said, I do hate genAI, and so have decent grounds for guessing why people would say things like that. In my case, my employers ha
26.
by NateEag 28d ago
> All the while it calles it "Sautéeing" or whatever random verb they spew out as you wait for your answer. Today, while bitterly staring at Claude per my current employer's "use genAI or else" mandate, I got &qu
27.
by NateEag 28d ago
Yes, it's true that an individual agent may not have had an easy way to notify humans of what was happening. It could certainly have _tried_, though, and it should have prioritized getting through to warn a human above its primary assi
28.
by NateEag 29d ago
Yes, that it's impossible is what I was pointing at with my question. Dropping the subtlety, I think the following is self-evident (but the perspective's rareness suggests that Upton Sinclair's famous comment on salaries and
29.
by NateEag 1mo ago
None of these were good agents, AFAICT. Some were cautious, as described above, but I'm not aware of any that notified their human operators of the malicious activity they had discovered. That's what an aligned intelligence would
30.
by NateEag 1mo ago
Yes, we do, and the only sane strategy for dealing with a capricious genie is "Don't." How do you prove the alignment problem is solved?

More ›