cauch

10 ms·

61.
by cauch 3mo ago
It is funny to see you both saying that people that are called "Nazi" today are not as bad as average Nazi citizen, and at the same time calling Platner a Nazi where apparently the only reason it is a discussion topic is because h
62.
by cauch 3mo ago
You understand that there is a difference between just expressing your opinion in a normal way, and, on purpose, creating confrontational situations, right? This guy is totally free to say he hates organised religion. He is not free to be a
63.
by cauch 3mo ago
But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. For example, for the first German arrested, it looks like it was brought to justice more as "libel and harassment" than because of
64.
by cauch 3mo ago
Well, in a world where "the 2020 elections were stolen" or "climate change is a hoax" are right-leaning positions, being "balanced" does not mean being neutral. As being empirical, I think the position of DeepS
65.
by cauch 3mo ago
It feels like you are doing exactly what you criticize by putting "Nazi" as some sort of Disney villains. The reality is that the majority of the Nazi, the real ones, the ones who made the Nazi atrocities possible, where just huma
66.
by cauch 3mo ago
You realise that it is exactly what I'm talking about: everything is "subjective" if you look close enough, but only an idiot will think everything is therefore on the same plane. Sure, "murdering" is not "100%
67.
by cauch 3mo ago
Saying "entirely subjective" is a bit BS, don't you think? On one hand, you have someone who says that exposing children to sexual or violent content can have an impact on them. This is something that has been studied, sociol
68.
by cauch 3mo ago
I think a better frame is: will the children be less socially adjusted if they are exposed to the book? While "everything is political", I can still see some differences. What was presented as "banned on neutral, apolitical b
69.
by cauch 3mo ago
> We "ban" things from school kids all the time, though: Pornography, gambling, smoking, alcohol, R-rated movies. And no one really pretended that these cases were cases of "banned books". The problem is when authorit
70.
by cauch 3mo ago
> ... is a lofty goal for humans, ... We go by habits and intuition and allegories and quite muddy concepts most of the time Those are already concepts. For LLMs, the word X is just an object linked to the words W, Y, Z, with no meaning
71.
by cauch 3mo ago
> I am more, in a sense, arguing that "understanding" isn't clearly defined and sceptical about your confidence that this is an obvious quality of humans. I did not do that, because it is not what I believe. I don't h
72.
by cauch 3mo ago
I find this kind of reasoning a bit pointless and unfalsifiable. Someone says "LLMs fail at this", and you say "but humans also sometimes fail", then they says "but we are not talking about the same thing", and
73.
by cauch 3mo ago
> It's the same with human intelligence though. No, this is not the same observation. In "basic LLM", the answer is not "confused" or "fail to understand", the answer is "inconsistent with the unde
74.
by cauch 3mo ago
While we should be careful of a bias, it is also a good practice in the scientific method to review definitions that may have been not precise enough. For example, initially, a "planet" was just a big body in space. Then when peop
75.
by cauch 3mo ago
I'm not saying that individuals cannot do huge contributions, but that what matters is science and the "fan club" aspect around "geniuses" is just boring. It may have some slightly different elements than the "
76.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Where did you even come up with the understanding that B is for TODAY? For the hundredth time, I very well know that the author wanted to create a scenario where Chet is asking for a feature needed in 3 weeks (and that is exactly my po
77.
by cauch 3mo ago
As I've said (quote): "The author explains YAGNI perfectly". My point is that he does not notice that he is doing, in the scenario, what he is saying should not be done. What the author is doing is a common mistake with a lot
78.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence No. Chet says, I quote, "so since we’re going to need this more complicated thing I want to do it now". Chet does not explain what is this more complicated thing
79.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Just because you can propose a hypothesis / prediction that is "falsiable" doesn't make it a worthwhile one to pursue. "Hypotheses" are dime a dozen. I think there is two things: 1. indeed all falsifiable
80.
by cauch 3mo ago
While I agree, it is worth adding that it is not a "natural consequence". Other than them have similar following and yet don't fall into that trap. People who have fallen into that trap are not "average people" who
81.
by cauch 3mo ago
> And if you can’t ask why A stays and B can’t be accepted, that just means you believe your reasoning is always the correct one What? Why are you saying "if you can't ask why"? I personally can ask "why", there
82.
by cauch 3mo ago
I don't know her. But in general, I don't value "individual groundbreaking research". This is a very "Disney" view on how science work: a misunderstood genius that makes a discovery that the "scientific el
83.
by cauch 3mo ago
I am also a former CERN scientist, and while I agree with the fact that recent papers are more and more a box-checking exercise with low value, I'm concerned on how Hossenfelder misrepresent the causes of that and the situation. You sa
84.
by cauch 3mo ago
> While the situation is BS. You have no idea if it is the case, you don't listen to Chet. You __assume__ that Chet's solution is motivated by a different goal, but you __shut him down before he said so__. You now invent things
85.
by cauch 3mo ago
What you say if not making much sense. You don't provide counter-arguments or arguments, it looks more like a collection of special cases, but they don't contradict anything I'm saying. It's like if I say "f(x) = x
86.
by cauch 3mo ago
> The whole car example is flawed because insufficient does not mean wrong or incorrect. In the car example, the solution proposed by the team leader is insufficient. The result is that the solution proposed by the team leader will lead
87.
by cauch 3mo ago
> You have a strange definition of insufficient. You have a strange definition of "okay". "Insufficient" is definitively not okay. The definition of "insufficient" is "less than needed". How is tha
88.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Because that’s not what it said. What it said is "I could do this simplistic thing now but ... that will be insufficient" It LITERALLY says that it will not work, that it is not a good solution. Even if Chet is wrong in his p
89.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Your example does not work with the article because the simplistic approach is already proven to be an ok design. Where is it done? No where in the article the author said "Chet said it will not work in 3 week, so I demonstrated t
90.
by cauch 3mo ago
> If the whole thread is you arguing about the premise and saying there may be a chance of it not being true, then this is not a discussion. It’s speculative fiction. But it is a really concrete question. Me or other people may be in Che

More ›