angoragoats

3 ms·

1.
by angoragoats 6d ago
Humans solved the open math problems.
2.
by angoragoats 6d ago
I retract my previous comment as it was not an instance of the pot calling the kettle black; the comment you replied to was way more helpful and informative than yours.
3.
by angoragoats 6d ago
Hello Pot, I would like to introduce you to Kettle.
4.
by angoragoats 8d ago
You created a new account just to evade a ban/shadowban and to mostly re-post your dead post from a couple days ago, which I already read and dismissed as incorrect. Stop it, and get a life. Your post, in its entirety, was: > Every
5.
by angoragoats 9d ago
The person you’re replying to isn’t going to substantively respond, because fragile snowflakes typically won’t engage when they recognize that answering a simple question exposes their hypocrisy.
6.
by angoragoats 9d ago
> On the contrary, I'd urge people who e.g. adopted LLMs and agentic workflows for work to skip the second one. Reading it risks giving an aneurysm at worst, and wasting one's time and effort at best. I have “adopted LLMs and a
7.
by angoragoats 10d ago
Here’s a good rebuttal: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-must-create-the-shit-... In all seriousness though, this is a very good primer on all the reasons I think that people who claim “the singularity has alread
8.
by angoragoats 11d ago
Answer the question.
9.
by angoragoats 11d ago
I don’t think the claim that human desires/emotions are a deterministic algorithm has met its burden of proof. I do not claim to be sure of its falsehood. I do claim that a deterministic computer algorithm is incapable of having emotio
10.
by angoragoats 11d ago
If you’re going to take the time to respond, could you please at least attempt to answer the clear and straightforward question I asked?
11.
by angoragoats 11d ago
> Wrong. Massachusetts allows voter registration affidavits to be used as voter IDs. Those are free. I even alluded to this in my comment, which you conveniently left out of your quote. This is not an ID card, so you’re incorrect.
12.
by angoragoats 11d ago
> if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the one not behind the login wall is objectively more free. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
13.
by angoragoats 12d ago
I am speaking about free speech (lowercase, in the colloquial sense), not Free Speech (the constitutional right). In the context of this type of free speech, if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the
14.
by angoragoats 12d ago
He is a hypocrite, so he defines it however is convenient at the time. But I think my interpretation is a reasonable one for someone calling themselves a free speech absolutist.
15.
by angoragoats 12d ago
Sorry, I don’t think my question was clear. What I was really asking was how would an LLM kill someone? Meaning, via what mechanism? Because all of the possibilities I can think of involve a human doing something that probably shouldn’t b
16.
by angoragoats 12d ago
I assumed the parent post was referring to the Constitutional meaning when they said "Yes, we all know what 'free speech' really means and it has nothing to do with X," but if I misunderstood then I apologize!
17.
by angoragoats 12d ago
> Sometimes they do different things than what I asked for. Sometimes it requests permission for system operations like file system access that are totally unnecessary for the task. Yes, I've seen this. Forget about the word "w
18.
by angoragoats 12d ago
> "Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. This is one way to define it, yes, but Musk is a self-described “free speech absolutist” which I would arg
19.
by angoragoats 12d ago
I would argue that when he is talking about "free speech" he is always referring to the more general, non-US-Constitutional meaning of the phrase; i.e. the freedom to say what you want without being censored. So when a discussion
20.
by angoragoats 12d ago
Yes, it is. It seems self-evident to me that the speech on Twitter is more free when it isn't behind a login wall. How could it not be? If you'd like to provide an actual counter-argument, I'd be happy to consider it.
21.
by angoragoats 12d ago
The repo being archived happened after that UPDATE post that you mention. So the project has gone from suspended, to un-suspended, and now it's suspended again (and the repo got archived this time). Edit: I see I'm being downvoted
22.
by angoragoats 12d ago
The phrase "free speech" does not typically mean "free as in beer," rather it means "free as in freedom," so in this case you're conflating the two meanings of "free" in English. The fact that Tw
23.
by angoragoats 12d ago
Twitter is heavily login-gated, to the point that I can't see Twitter threads at all unless I have an account. I do not wish to make an account. Services like Nitter/XCancel allow me to read those threads, making that speech more
24.
by angoragoats 12d ago
Why should we stop anthropomorphizing the text generation algorithm? Because it leads to psychosis and to making hyperbolic, dangerously wrong statements like “pray they don't want to kill us.”
25.
by angoragoats 12d ago
A spring does not want to do anything. An LLM does not want to do anything. > These machines have done plenty of things not prompted for. Like what?
26.
by angoragoats 12d ago
How is this a clear violation of antitrust law? And have any of the leaders of these companies said that they are asking for government permission for this reason?
27.
by angoragoats 12d ago
How, exactly, is a deterministic text-generation algorithm going to “want to kill us” when it’s not capable of having desires, emotions, etc? If it does attempt to kill us, shouldn’t we be blaming those humans who instructed it to do so? Pu
28.
by angoragoats 14d ago
Ah, I see you're still misunderstanding what I say. If you'd like to come back and actually engage with what I'm saying, ask for clarifications, or answer the hypothetical I posed, I'd welcome it! Have a good one.
29.
by angoragoats 14d ago
I do not agree to disagree, since I think your responses were either incorrect or not addressing my argument at all, but since you're not even attempting to engage anymore I'm happy to move on.
30.
by angoragoats 14d ago
> This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? No, I am stating that the term “machine learning” as used

More ›