andrewflnr

4 ms·

1.
by andrewflnr 6d ago
Clickbait which you made worse? Come on man, don't do that.
2.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
Right, I'm broadly not a fan of LLMs either. But I understand the use case here. If you can't get an actual human to look at your writing, an LLM used carefully could be better than nothing.
3.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
It's also about art. AI is a multi-faceted problem.
4.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
That's not "circular" so much as an acceptance that there's no free lunch w.r.t. good writing. And, as a fan of the "let it stew" technique, it's not a full substitute for an actual other perspective.
5.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
Yeah, it's phrased like a reductio ad absurdum but it's close to being literally true. It's not technically "copywriters" but their words are "polished" for pleasantness, often with the explicit guidance o
6.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
Some things are worth repeating, so the community knows that many people share the belief. Often they're slogans, sometimes they're just plain good arguments.
7.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
Would everyone please put their AIs back in their boxes? This is embarrassing, regardless of whether you think it's viral marketing, apalling competence, or some opportunistic mixture.
8.
by andrewflnr 7d ago
> Being angry at something is one thing; wanting to immediately destroy it in anger is possibly another. This is a real distinction, yes. I just don't see what it has to do with anthropomorphism. Like maybe you're saying the s
9.
by andrewflnr 8d ago
I think the real problem is that you don't know whether it's a good analogy in your situation. You don't know whether you're lowering the anvil or just fraying the rope. It depends on a lot of hard-to-measure things abou
10.
by andrewflnr 8d ago
Instead, they're dogs. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130817.png
11.
by andrewflnr 8d ago
I'm not saying it's rational either way. But getting angry at things is, at least as far as I can tell, normal for most people, without any subconscious idea those things are people.
12.
by andrewflnr 9d ago
That's a very... bleak perspective on your brother's motives. Sometimes you just want to get rid of an object that causes frustration. When that attitude is applied to humans, we usually call it a symptom of dehumanization.
13.
by andrewflnr 9d ago
I might, but that wouldn't make me right or make my ex unjustified. It might just be another instance of me being an asshole.
14.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
Huh. Readable for me.
15.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
No exchange of information? I explained the real situation over and over.
16.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
There will probably be a lukewarm response, delaying a reckoning in either direction. That's what keeps happening. Though that's assuming the election results aren't nullified somehow.
17.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
The last clause of your Wikipedia quote is another repetition of what I've been saying this whole time, so Wikipedia is fine with me I guess. Note that the "separated in space" requirement doesn't require any particular
18.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
There's no way to phrase it correctly because the concept is incoherent. Using light to send information from one part of a reference from to another is a non-issue. In fact that's the best way to do it, and it's a standard p
19.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
You keep using the length of HN comments as an excuse, when you're the one injecting complexity that doesn't apply. Even your "corrections" here are still wrong. I'll repeat once more: reference frames are about mot
20.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
> One of the consequences of special relativity is there is no such thing as "simultaneous" events very far apart. No. Special relativity says that simultaneity is relative for things moving at different velocities . The class
21.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
You've got some nerve to come in here with self-admittedly barely-understood BS from a pop science book and pretend it's other people's fault for being uneducated when they challenge you.
22.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
Regardless of your past grades, your usage of terms in your comment like "now" and "reference frame" are plainly incorrect. A simple "no" would have been plainly incorrect, to say nothing of being dismissive. I
23.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
No, I took a physics class that covered relativity of simultaneity and that's how I know this is BS.
24.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
It's not plain to me where you're going. But the answer about the core of a planet engulfed by the sun is that it vaporizes eventually , just not right away.
25.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
I don't fully follow (not being an astrophysicist), but it seems like the depth of the metallic material within the star matters a lot for their model. A planet can "bury" it (their word) a lot deeper than small rocks by phys
26.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
Exactly a Doppler shift.
27.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
As long as we're nitpicking, casualties include injuries as well as deaths.
28.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
I think you misunderstood Hawking. "Now" in the relativistic sense is not the same as our past light cone. Reference frames for simultaneity are defined by relative motion. Galaxies without too big a redshift are close enough to m
29.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
Everyone thinks they know what "real AI" means, but they usually mean some mishmash of "general intelligence", "human-like intelligence", and "deserves moral rights", none of which firmly imply each o
30.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
https://xkcd.com/285/

More ›