Planktonne

3 ms·

1.
by Planktonne 6d ago
Everyone involved in AI should have read The Library of Babel [1]. It's about many things, but perhaps the most relevant idea here is that no information matters without understanding. We could generate all possible knowledge, but un
2.
by Planktonne 6d ago
The majority of British accents would pronounce the 'h'.
3.
by Planktonne 8d ago
I've met all kinds of people, but the most likely explanation for people doing something they said they were going to do and had the capability to do is that they did it. Twisting yourself in knots to pretend it's more likely that
4.
by Planktonne 8d ago
> There's a very obvious explanation, which is that nobody bothered to check the date and assumed that if it was military base in 2013 it was still a military base today. That's not a particularly obvious or even likely explan
5.
by Planktonne 8d ago
This is a pervasive technology that--from most people's perspectives--has primarily negative effects and is promoted primarily by people with negative intentions. Protests are more than understandable.
6.
by Planktonne 8d ago
> But most of the writing is usually, these are the ideas, this is how the idea are structured together, now let's review them and then let's get a nice prose out of it. I know lots of AI-enabled writers believe this, but I&#x2
7.
by Planktonne 10d ago
But then the human should also get Stockfish, and we're back at a stalemate.
8.
by Planktonne 10d ago
I think projects like this--feeding a bunch of incomplete information into AI and making a glossy-but-shallow output--do more harm than good. How stories and created and shared and transmitted is a vast and complex field, something well wor
9.
by Planktonne 10d ago
That would mean we should consider any human with coding knowledge a chess grandmaster, which is obviously not the case.
10.
by Planktonne 11d ago
That's part of my complaint. More and more money is poured into 'innovation' across our society, but what do we have to show for it?
11.
by Planktonne 11d ago
It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back
12.
by Planktonne 12d ago
> Xcancel scrapes and then competes directly with X, whereas LLM labs scrape the internet to make an agentic intelligent bot, a transformative use of the scraped content. It seems unreasonable to stop there though; the agentic bots are d
13.
by Planktonne 12d ago
Would that really count as a 'massive benefit' then?
14.
by Planktonne 13d ago
I don't agree that people do see that, and if they do, it's hardly an overwhelming trend.
15.
by Planktonne 13d ago
> those who learn to use AI effectively are seeing massive benefits The massive benefits should be visible to outside observers as well, but where are they?
16.
by Planktonne 14d ago
AI can be very helpful in lots of ways, but I think it's fair to say that it is most powerful as an enabler for bad actors.
17.
by Planktonne 14d ago
> The statement is so sterile they don't even mention who solved it. Possibly because of the ongoing debate about who actually deserves credit.
18.
by Planktonne 14d ago
If the query is just 'python', then both you and your neighbour should get some links for the language and some for the animal. If it only gives you the one you already know about, it's a useless tool.
19.
by Planktonne 15d ago
There's nothing more thought-suppressing than dismissing all equation to fascism as thought suppression. If we actually agreed on the principle, you wouldn't be engaging in the behaviour.
20.
by Planktonne 15d ago
You're engaging in worse faith; dismissing all criticism because it draws a parallel you don't like isn't reasonable. Sometimes, it will be fascism. "It's never fascism" is not a good heuristic.
21.
by Planktonne 15d ago
That's a lot of leaping to conclusions based on a small criticism. I'm rather tired, personally, of the HN trope of people saying that AI is bad for/mis-used by everyone except a carefully-defined group that consists of exact
22.
by Planktonne 15d ago
> I do think that for the atypical user that is "information-hungry," > Prior to AI, I would have just... not spent the time looking them up. You're putting yourself in the group of people who are 'information-hung
23.
by Planktonne 15d ago
I don't think that's a reasonable read; you can't dismiss a specific criticism on the (unsupported) ground that the person making it would totally have dismissed anything at all.
24.
by Planktonne 15d ago
> feel no need to differentiate themselves from other anti-technology arguments Why should they? Other "anti-tech" arguments include - Concern about global warming/pollution - Resistance to nuclear/chemical warfare It
25.
by Planktonne 15d ago
I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing. As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples o
26.
by Planktonne 15d ago
They're being sued for several issues that resulted in the deaths of users; that's not fraud, but it is against their users. The parallel still holds, and the information is still on the page I linked.
27.
by Planktonne 16d ago
The smartest minds in advertising convinced everyone they were in tech.
28.
by Planktonne 16d ago
Nonsense; the claim was that they wouldn't do anything that would mean they'd be > risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust Evidence of the massive lawsuits and lack of trust seems pretty relevant.
29.
by Planktonne 16d ago
You can read their Wikipedia page [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_is...
30.
by Planktonne 16d ago
They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.

More ›