arduanika

7 ms·

91.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Huh. Maybe they just do that automatically when a verified account renames itself, to keep the old one reserved? Who knows.
92.
by arduanika 8mo ago
They can, however, rename their Twitter/X accounts and vacate the @SecDef handle, which seems to be up for grabs now, if anyone wants to do the funniest thing...
93.
by arduanika 8mo ago
As best I can tell, his hard-drinking era ended many years before he entered the cabinet. But this does feel like a pretty impulsive decision, and there's some ambiguity over whether this statement was approved by the WH, or whether th
94.
by arduanika 8mo ago
I can see both sides as pertains to Trump's initial decision to stop working with Claude, but now, this over-the-top "supply chain risk" designation from Hegseth is something else. It's hard to square it with any real pr
95.
by arduanika 8mo ago
None in particular. I was talking about "primary sources" as a category. See also what I wrote here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47178573 It was a meta point. Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was
96.
by arduanika 8mo ago
The good books, unlike the good podcasts, can rarely be reduced to a single forum comment. You don't read them to cite them as a zinger in an online back-and-forth. You read lots of them, and you cross-reference them with the world aro
97.
by arduanika 8mo ago
I almost downvoted you, because this is a pretty classic LMGTFY (or now, LMLLMTFY), but on second thought, you're right. The "Dario" is clear, he's the author of TFA, but for other execs, Anthropic's fans on here sh
98.
by arduanika 8mo ago
I tried several times to read your second paragraph, and failed to parse it. Could you break it into several sentences somehow? It's possible you're making an important point, but I can't tell what you're trying to say.
99.
by arduanika 8mo ago
That's not a refutation. It's a list of silly cartoons designed to make the reader feel smart, thrown together by one of the leaders of the AI cult. Do you people know any other writers?
100.
by arduanika 8mo ago
These are two different kinds of rewrites, for two different kinds of codebases, in two different situations. The important thing is to know which kind of rewrite you're doing, and have the whole team onboard. The sort of rewrite you&#
101.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Ugh, we've been slangmogged
102.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Trust Langley to neatly tie up all the loose ends.
103.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Shambaugh is a contributor to a major open source library, with a track record of integrity and pro-social collaboration. What have you contributed to? Do you have any evidence to back up your rather odd conspiracy theory? > To quote mys
104.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Yeah, I felt kind of bad that he gave me such an earnest, thought-out reply to what was essentially a stupid morg/borg joke. But his final sentence suggests that he at least got my joke. (I don't entirely agree with him, but I upv
105.
by arduanika 8mo ago
This is a perfect description. I've probably been the dog at some point. p_ing, see my nearby comment about what we mean by "multiple". Does that comment make any false "assumptions"? Or, is it you who are mistaken,
106.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Quiet! MSFT's damage control team does not want us to embiggen the incident.
107.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Or something more general, like when a concept or diagram gets pulled into the AI's rough knowledge base, but it completely misses the point and mangles it. Or, alex_suzuki's colorful definition. But really, whoever goes to Urban
108.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Decades upon decades of hard work by public contributors -- open source code, careful tech blogging, painstaking diagrams -- all of it will be assimilated without credit or accuracy into the morg. Resistance is futile.
109.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Correct. It's not youtube, it's themtube.
110.
by arduanika 8mo ago
The boss was following Strunk & White's advice to omit needless letters.
111.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Yes. Thank you to hooch for prefacing this submission with "Kim Dotcom says", which really helps us to calibrate our trust of the claims!
112.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Not weird. Taking blame on himself rather than the junior reporter was the most -- the only? -- professional thing about this whole snafu.
113.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Okay. I've been harsh on Ars Technica in these comments, and I'm going to continue to hold an asterisk in my head whenever I see them cited as a source going forward. However, at least one thing in this apology does seem more reas
114.
by arduanika 8mo ago
No reason to trust that the comment section is any more genuine than the deleted fake article. If an Ars employee used genAI to astroturf these comments, they clearly would not be fired for it or even called out by name.
115.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Careful before trusting that any of the quotes in an Ars Technica article are real! Default assumption should be that it's all hallucinated unless you've checked it personally. They don't check it in-house. https:/&#x2F
116.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Careful before trusting that any of the quotes in this article are real! Default assumption should be that it's all hallucinated unless you've checked it personally. They don't check it in-house. https://news.ycomb
117.
by arduanika 8mo ago
I mean, I'm even more frustrated by this in Scott's original post: > If you are the person who deployed this agent, please reach out. It’s important for us to understand this failure mode, and to that end we need to know what m
118.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Equivalently: Our standards "may have" been low enough that this was just fine, actually.
119.
by arduanika 8mo ago
This error by Ars is a whole new layer on top of that story.
120.
by arduanika 8mo ago
Comparing machines to human slaves is false, confused, and tasteless, all at once. Get your priorities and your categories straight.

More ›