SanderNL

31 ms·

331.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Yes and calculators have the same issue. I mean, what about Indian numerals, Ethiopian and how does one perform a proper Coptic calculation using these awful devices with showstopping UX flaws? It’s time we pander to each and every cultur
332.
by SanderNL 3y ago
“Unlikely” being the keyword here. I know it’s unlikely, but just the act of collecting all this data makes it dangerous. IMO the benefits are small compared to the longterm risks so I lean towards, don’t track, just deliver “good coffee”.
333.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I'm not claiming the relation is causal. I don't know what happens between happy world -> happy world with constant surveillance -> dystopian hellscape. The same is true for HN logs. I'd say, yes those logs are a form o
334.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I get the feeling. But to make things very simple, it's again like law enforcement tracking everything you say and do. Let's say it's a single agency, with a single employee doing the tracking to keep it easy. How is that hur
335.
by SanderNL 3y ago
This is similar to law enforcement saying: "You mean we cannot track everything you say and do. How in the world are we supposed to do our jobs safely and efficiently?" Answer is, you basically can't. Not safely and not (as)
336.
by SanderNL 3y ago
What about the employer’s side of the story though? The one that’s on the other side of the economic engine. You expect to be paid in full and in exactly the right amount at the right time, but if we so much as superficially check you are a
337.
by SanderNL 3y ago
People will see patterns in this riddle and claim it is “just” altering those. “It’s just a bunch a patterns where you can switch the names, like templates”. Isn’t everything like that? “Uhh…” I had the same discussions about chess. “It h
338.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I had a feeling you had something interesting to say, but I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. I am being serious. I just applied GPT4 to ELI5 your comment to me. I feel like I have crossed some threshold and I’m not sure if I am proud of
339.
by SanderNL 3y ago
If reasoning is amenable to being “embedded” at all then we should perhaps reconsider its fundamental nature? It’s easy to say something like that, but what does it mean in situations where it is producing a novel and correct answer that
340.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I am becoming somewhat of a broken record, but sigh.. To predict the next token you must reason or have some process that approximates it. “Given all these various factors, the most likely resolution to our conundrum is: …” Good luck doing
341.
by SanderNL 3y ago
The disagreement is on what (sub)systems are even necessary/important. Heck, we usually have trouble agreeing on what goals we are achieving. Once we settle on what truly matters, separating the essential is not that hard.
342.
by SanderNL 3y ago
It’s all smoke and mirrors. There’s surely someone driving it remotely or hidden under the hood. Self-driving is a hoax meant to distract us. AI is snake oil, Dreyfus, hype train. Stochastic parrot. Confabulations. Unredeemable and based on
343.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Let’s just say education might be an issue.
344.
by SanderNL 3y ago
“Unlicensed communication”. Now that’s an interesting way to put it.
345.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Yes indeed and it’ll be interesting to see where that line is. I still think there is a lot to be gained from just properly and efficiently composing the parts we already have (like how the community handled stable diffusion) and exposing
346.
by SanderNL 3y ago
> thanked for publishing what they and they alone claim works. Fixed.
347.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Excuse me, I was being snarky. I agree that we are low on information, but I guess we disagree on how low. You imply we have so little information the outcome is basically random, which I think is a bit too extreme. I don't find it far
348.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I know these numbers and they are brought up often, but nearly 100% of our terrain is fundamentally habitable - but some of it is purposefully claimed for nature - and filled to the brim with essential infrastructure. I don't think you
349.
by SanderNL 3y ago
SD and its configurability is miles and miles ahead of MJ. Sure if you want a fancy picture now it’s OK. How are you going to generate that same picture in another pose? Inpainting, outpainting.. I don’t even know where to begin. MJ is a
350.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I don’t know about Finland, but Dutch people already can’t find places to live. If you are unlucky financially and need government housing you will wait years if not a decade or more for something. If you can rent something you will pay €10
351.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I find focusing on fundamental tools and concepts like terminals and text mode editors like vi and emacs will pay off handsomely. All the fancy dialogs will switch around every few years. This mindset extends to stuff like Word. Whenever yo
352.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Moore is not helping here. Software and algorithms will fix this up, which is already happening at a frightening rate. Not too long ago, like months, we were still debating if it was ever even possible to run LLMs locally.
353.
by SanderNL 3y ago
Excellent! Impossible to keep up.
354.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I have been toying around with Stable Diffusion for a while now and becoming comfortable with the enormous community filled with textual inversions , LoRAs , hyper networks and checkpoints . You can get things with names like “chill bl
355.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I think I implied a strong connection between LLMs and how biological intelligence works, but I certainly didn’t intend to. I think you discount general knowledge acquired non-verbally too easily. The sound of an ambulance and how it moves
356.
by SanderNL 3y ago
If they did a better job in the first place we wouldn’t have to argue about it now. Their works are famously vague and low on details. It’s not something engineers can do useful work with.
357.
by SanderNL 3y ago
I get the sentiment, but ultimately business is time-bound. Everything is about time. But now we have a bunch of “engineers” (that somehow are fundamentally incapable of structured planning and execution) that are “not concerned with time”.
358.
by SanderNL 3y ago
The only quasi-interesting property this has is that it can change over time. Nothing you said changes the main problem: gold stars are weeks and we all know it. Next year they are two weeks, fine.
359.
by SanderNL 3y ago
But eventually everyone knows that your gold stars stand for weeks. So how does this help?
360.
by SanderNL 3y ago
You have ingested truly astronomical amounts of data. Your body is covered with sensors of various kinds. Millions of datapoints streaming in day and night. You are not storing it all, but you are finding patterns and correlations in it fro

More ›