dataflow

19 ms·

511.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> They didn't give up, they appealed. Most of the appeals, as I recall, were also decided on procedural grounds, but by that time it was (IIRC) "this is moot, we're not going to overturn the result of an election that was
512.
by dataflow 7mo ago
FWIW, I don't think you're really addressing their point. What they're really saying is that they find it implausible that any significant fraction of the population is genuinely unable to go to the DMV once every 10 years.
513.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Great, thanks for clarifying.
514.
by dataflow 7mo ago
>> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. > In my experience, LLMs hallucinate citations like crazy. Over 50% of the times I've checked, the citation either didn't exist, or it did but didn't suppor
515.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I explained this in a bit more depth in an adjacent reply (feel free to take a look) but obtaining the source from AI doesn't achieve the same thing. For example, there might be other links that contradict that source, which the AI wou
516.
by dataflow 7mo ago
For reference, the point here isn't to say "what AI thinks", but what you found with the help of AI . The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does
517.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> there's no scientific link between race and the ability to go to a DMV once every 10 years That form of ID is neither accepted per the proposed legislation [1] nor does it last 10 years (more like 4-5 years from what I've see
518.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Do the guidelines also disallow comments along the lines of "according to <AI>, <blah>"? (I ask this given that "according to a Google search, <blah>" is allowed, AFAIK.)
519.
by dataflow 7mo ago
That's completely false as far as I'm aware. Where did you see this? A simple web search shows numerous sources to the contrary. Are you confusing them with patents by any chance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2F
520.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I have zero actual experience in training models, but in general, when parallelizing work: there can be fundamental nondeterminism (e.g., some race conditions) that is tolerated, whose recording/reproduction can be prohibitive performa
521.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Except it seems to be arguing in the exact opposite direction, and about the other side of the problem? Those in favor of gun control aren't trying to lower human responsibility, they're trying to place stricter limits on the guns
522.
by dataflow 7mo ago
You're not only undeservedly dismissing very salient high-level points but also just completely missing the low-level ones. Even ignoring build times and looking only at execution times (and btw it's not just time that matters her
523.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I don't think any side on the issue of gun ownership has ever claimed that statement is false, so I'm not sure what your point is.
524.
by dataflow 7mo ago
This is a pretty flippant response to a rather insightful point by someone who isn't exactly a newbie to the language. They understand very well the implications of move being nondestructive and the point they're making stands nev
525.
by dataflow 7mo ago
With std::nullptr_t on MSVC, it's always there without any includes.
526.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> I was somewhat horrified to discover that the STL ended up with a special role in the language spec. (IIRC, one of the tie-ins is initializer lists.) std::type_info? std::is_trivially_...?
527.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> Not sure why they felt the need to abbreviate this It's super common terminology for people around those spaces; they probably didn't even think about whether they should abbreviate it.
528.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> What makes the leak illegal other than copyright? The occasional piece of software might be a trade secret, but a person downloading a preexisting leak isn't affected by those laws. I think 18 U.S.C. § 1832 (a) (3) might answer yo
529.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I'm not sure I understand. I'm not talking about stolen/leaked code here. I'm saying: imagine you claim you're the author of some piece of code. You may or may not have written it with an LLM, but even if so, assume
530.
Source: Havana Syndrome investigation is "a CIA cover-up" – 60 Minutes [video](youtube.com)
2 points by dataflow 7mo ago|3 comments
531.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Yeah, he lost me there. It's like saying "if you share this you must give me a million dollars -- that's not a restriction, it's a condition!"
532.
by dataflow 7mo ago
IMO the bigger question is how would you even tell if a work was generated by an LLM? There's a ton of code being written out there; the folks who generated it are going to claim they authored it for copyright purposes, and those who w
533.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I don't know how laws work here but I can't imagine having adequate "proof of service" fully insulates you from all possible claims of non-receipt, especially electronically? Like what if the recipient was in a coma or o
534.
by dataflow 7mo ago
The exploitability goes both ways, I think. Users can also mark similar emails as spam to keep such emails out of their inboxes. Not sure how one could deal with that.
535.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> Spam categorization isn't a delivery issue. The delivery is the same whether you, upon taking delivery, toss the message into a bin labeled "spam" or one labeled "inbox". You think she marked it as spam befor
536.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. No, you're even harsher than the court. The court explicitly looked at common practices by consume
537.
by dataflow 7mo ago
> I think it's rather relevant that she affirmatively searched for and found the email? It is. There are lots of relevant facts. Did I claim otherwise?
538.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Fundamentally, the court seems to be treating this identically to a scenario where the user was ignorant and failed to read their inbox. The court seems to be completely disregarding that it was misdelivered into spam. The word "spam&q
539.
by dataflow 7mo ago
I think the Turing test ought to be fine, but we need to be less generous to the AI when executing it. If there exists any human that can consistently tell your AI apart from humans without without insider knowledge, then I don't thi
540.
by dataflow 7mo ago
Thanks for explaining! That's a great perspective/experience that helps me understand it better. Re: legal documents: there are less severe cases than warrants that I would expect to trip a lot of people up, which is what I'm

More ›