Planktonne

5 ms·

31.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
The industrial revolution and the British empire are both extremely clear proof that Britain was in no way 'crippled'. Particularly not in the world of knowledge, given the countless inventions involved. If the creation of copyrig
32.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
It's not clear that it actually does help solve crimes. It might even exacerbate them. There's been a lot of stalking enabled by Flock cameras.
33.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
> in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom How do you account for the industrial revolution under this framing, or the global dominance of the British Empire? Its really hard to argue that 1710 onwards marked
34.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I know this is a popular take on HN, but it's very much one that collapses the moment you think about it. Abolishing copyright would only enable the large corporations further.
35.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
> A possible first step could be giving copyright owners a single obligation: you have to sell what you own This would be wildly unreasonable and totally unethical. Every picture taken by a photographer has to be available on the market
36.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Mandating that creators lose control and the ability to profit from their work almost immediately will absolutely not encourage the production of new works.
37.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
There's no logic here already; the principle you should be applying is Hitchen's razor[1]. There is no reason to assume that super intelligent evil AI with magic powers will appear; while we are purely in the realm of (hackneyed)
38.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
You don't need to shut down open-weight models to avoid SkyNet; it's not relevant at all.
39.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us. There is currently no reason to belie
40.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Coming equipped to discuss a topic before chiming in is your responsibility.
41.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
People in the past being wrong doesn't mean you have to repeat the same mistakes, and it definitely doesn't mean you should throw your hands up and declare that all similar things must be identical. Quibbling over commonly-underst
42.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
The crucial distinction here is that "seem" does not at all mean the same thing as "is". Thunder seems like the anger of the gods but it isn't . We've had chess playing programs for a long time now and despite
43.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
That's an absurdist argument that would make 'smarter' meaningless. A giraffe isn't smarter than me at being tall.
44.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
That's a bunch of unproven allegations from an administration with a history of lies; have you got anything more concrete?
45.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
There is no group of people who put enormous amounts of effort into not putting effort in to writing. To fully disguise LLM prose, you'd have to rewrite it entirely, and if you were going to do that, you wouldn't be the sort of pe
46.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
To informally describe something as wrong in an article focused on how it's wrong to informally describe something is incoherent. There's a certain irony in pointing me towards the guidelines on the grounds that I have limited pat
47.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Sure, but just because you think a colloquial meaning exists doesn't mean you're correct. It particularly doesn't mean that if you're seeing other people (that you don't like) use a term you yourself don't use,
48.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Mostly I disagree with the article's ideas, if that helps; the AI was just a secondary factor. > I don’t think it’s a good reason to dismiss this AI-generated prose reads as sending a 'lack of effort' signal to a lot of pe
49.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
> Describing it as a "next-token predictor" in the sense that this would mean it's fundamentally limited to just a fraction of an inferential step I don't think anyone is doing that though; we know LLMs are not simple
50.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I think you're trying to limit the meaning of both 'next' and 'prediction' in ways that don't reflect usage and that--if adopted--would severely limit our ability to discuss and evolve what LLMs are actually do
51.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
It's a short article; you could read it. One example to get you started is the very first sentence: > Strictly speaking, the statement “LLMs are next-token predictors” isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete. The article is about how &#x27
52.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
In my experience, people who do 'AI-assisted' writing tend to be very bad at noticing how much of their work AI has changed. I'm sure you put thought into it, but passing it through AI takes a lot of that out.
53.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I'm not sure what you want me to do with that information; clearly I do think that my description is accurate. The article is littered with both AI tells and admissions that 'next token prediction' is what is happening. Hence
54.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I don't that's a fair description of either 'next-token predictor' or 'stochastic parrot'. Both of those terms describe mechanism, not value--the fact that people squawk that the terms are minimising is project
55.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I'm not going to stop describing things accurately because someone generated an article that continually undermines its own main point. Limiting the way we talk and think about LLMs to a very narrow set of terms doesn't help us. E
56.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
> For whole projects, I have a 3 page anti-bloat.md which describes what not to do This line would be cut from a satire for being too heavy-handed.
57.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
I'm sure it's going to do great on all sorts of benchmarks, but the video--the actual marketing video that if anything is incentivised to overstate things--is full of careful cuts just before it would do anything that still wouldn
58.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
The atomic bomb destroyed cities and changed the face of war. The launch video for Astra has 'can upload a photo to Ebay' as a highlight.
59.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Without wishing to be unkind, this reads a lot more as 'one-shot with AI' than 'many iterations'; if you truly did that much editing, you didn't put it where it showed. You've got all the AI favourite names and
60.
by Planktonne 1mo ago
Pretty much, yes. People read no visuals or poor visuals as 'hobbyist who really cares about [other aspect]'; years of experience make it a familiar schema. They read AI as 'grifter who probably doesn't care about any as

More ›