alganet

31 ms·

361.
by alganet 1y ago
It seems to me that you missed the purpose of it.
362.
by alganet 1y ago
Ah, I see! If you're not willing to research, you should hire and pay someone (not me) for that information.
363.
by alganet 1y ago
You're trying to imply that all things that are not a matter of taste or preference are already decided. I'm not convinced. There are unknowns, which benefit from discussion so they can be transformed into knowns. It doesn't
364.
by alganet 1y ago
You're framing it like a court system, in which disputes can be judged and contested. I don't know, it sounds like there could be a lot of loopholes in such system.
365.
by alganet 1y ago
Precisely. Some discussions are not a matter of taste or preference.
366.
by alganet 1y ago
You're looking for "something to fight for", the discussion is just a way of doing that. Your a person that has a fight, you need to have it. I'm not that, so I can't understand your argument. I don't need to h
367.
by alganet 1y ago
I don't care about what dang is up to. You were really never part of the conversation. The most important thing you missed is that your presence does not bother me.
368.
by alganet 1y ago
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I'm trying to harden the will of people who think they are better than others, specially in (but not limited to) regards to AI. Playing on their hubris, their resources, and their insecu
369.
by alganet 1y ago
There are tons of discussions to be had in the subject of auto-karma, which you are trying to evade. You're trying to create an association between what I'm saying and HN-related karma, which I already dismissed previously. I&#x27
370.
by alganet 1y ago
Your description is wrong. I think people don't want to share it because their auto-karma sucks, not because it works.
371.
by alganet 1y ago
It's a complex one, in the sense that it allows for an answer if you frame it in a cartesian plane. --- Let's get real, real quick. - If this is a real employee of a real company, he's being an asshole and deserves the scorn.
372.
by alganet 1y ago
Some models often report their training hardware. It doesn't take 5min to figure out that you can't "catch up" with it. If you have the resources to "catch up", you would probably not ask poorly stated question
373.
by alganet 1y ago
Is he a coworker or an imaginary coworker you made up just to be able to post this question? (not a trick question, I am performing a geniuine inquiry).
374.
by alganet 1y ago
I was suggesting you had chosen a bad name. But then, you gamed the conversation, and assumed that the bad name follows the bad idea. What I did to describe it, would be the equivalent of an en passant pawn capture, in chess terms.
375.
by alganet 1y ago
Chess implies a game. Conversations that are games already exist. It makes your idea dumb. Dumb ideas deserve no space. Conversations that are not games are rare. That's an idea worth pursuing. --- I'm not afraid of games. I can p
376.
by alganet 1y ago
Chess implies a game, of which there are plenty already. The novelty would be a conversation platform that overcomes the primitive urge to game everything.
377.
by alganet 1y ago
If you don't want to share your opinion, you can just say it.
378.
by alganet 1y ago
In this story, I'm the horror that makes people blow money on AI. So horrific, it told them before it happened that it would be a mistake.
379.
by alganet 1y ago
Why is it paranoid? It's an obvious application of the technology, that seems hard to get working, but obvious. I don't see how this is so far-fetched. If you do, you failed to explain it.
380.
by alganet 1y ago
> "Correct factual arguments" is hard Is it though? > A machine that can determine the truth isn't a machine, it's a god. Irrelevant exageration. --- Also, I am not asking how would you do it. I'm asking why d
381.
by alganet 1y ago
That is a question I already answered in the post: "using correct factual arguments, not straying away, not misdirecting, being considerate and reasonable". If you have all figured out, except this, then you disagree and see quali
382.
by alganet 1y ago
Why do you think that is? I mean, the results not being promising. This is not a jab on AI tech, it's a genuine question. I am 100% on the side that such applications of artificial intelligence should be used with caution and, therefor
383.
Ask HN: Real Karma?
2 points by alganet 1y ago|24 comments
384.
by alganet 1y ago
Nope, you're question was related to "catching up with current datacenters", not "how they look like in relation to energy concerns". It looks like I'm right (regarding what you're asking, not strictly abo
385.
by alganet 1y ago
It sounds to me very related. You're trying to jump from "local" to "local datacenter". If it's not that, can you explain a little better what you're trying to do? There is no way a single person can amoun
386.
by alganet 1y ago
Are you the same guy from here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44745937 Trying to make another post so your question wouldn't be addressed on the same thread? If not, would you connect these two threads in a sing
387.
by alganet 1y ago
Terms such as "mixture of specialists" are already common for AI tech. The idea of an "AI agent" is to anthropomorphize. You don't call workers domain-specific humans. It sounds like a strange choice. That's wh
388.
by alganet 1y ago
It's garbage. This very own question is problematic. It creates the illusion that local LLM development can compete with huge datacenters, it cannot. Well-Educated Human Brain > Data center LLMs > Local LLMs That's how likel
389.
by alganet 1y ago
Why not simply call it "specialist"? Are you trying to make some close connection to "Domain Specific Languages" somehow?
390.
Descent of Inanna into the Underworld(en.wikipedia.org)
36 points by alganet 1y ago|10 comments

More ›