ekelsen

6 ms·

61.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
Because it makes them feel important because they are developing something so dangerous everyone else ought to listen to what they say. It's about ego, not profits.
62.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control. That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?
63.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
This seems really cool and impactful. I just wonder how it would be received by a public scared of vaccines. The yuck factor is very very high. But it's all natural except for a little generic engineering. Hard to say which way it fall
64.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
It's how LLMs write. The tweet / article is written by an LLM and that's how it does.
65.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
"Three layers."
66.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
As a reader, I appreciate reading writing that lacks large amounts of spelling mistakes. Everyone agreeing on spelling seems like a useful monoculture, like driving on the same side of the road. But I don't feel the same way about AI w
67.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
I would argue that not having any overlap between generations is a bigger problem. It guarantees no accumulation of knowledge.
68.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
having arms is probably an advantage in developing tool-use, but who knows!
69.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
Interesting to think what could be if cephalopods raised their young instead of leaving them to completely fend for themselves. It would start intergenerational knowledge transfer, i.e. culture. Maybe selection pressure then trends towards
70.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if humans behaved the same way when playing the same game? Like even if you brought me into a room and told me I was controlling "real nuclear weapons" I wouldn't believe you.
71.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
Yeah I'm aware -- just pointing out that this threshold could be reached by other means and the options for enforcing it if it happens via birthrate are all pretty grim.
72.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
I understand your point, but I will say that many of the other policies also are not capable of being truly objectively enforced either ("I know it when I see it"). An effort could be made to define an approximate boundary. Perhap
73.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
What would they do if the natural birthrate were to tip it over the threshold? (Perhaps unlikely at current birthrates, but given that laws last long times, perhaps worth considering?)
74.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
For the record, I'm not against the use of AI during the writing process. It can be used to make the final product better without eliminating the human authors style. I am against everything I read turning into one monoculture of AI pr
75.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
HN is big enough that its standards could propagate beyond these walls.
76.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47477284 was definitely somewhere between generated by and edited by AI. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411799 originally linked to the pdf version which is clea
77.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans."
78.
If HN policy disallows AI comments, why is linking to AI generated content ok?
13 points by ekelsen 4mo ago|10 comments
79.
by ekelsen 4mo ago
So much AI. I stopped immediately. He might have something interesting to say, but apparently not important enough for him to write about it himself, so not important enough for me to read it either.
80.
by ekelsen 6mo ago
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133476/1439133476___5.htm Arthur c Clarke's short story, "Superiority," describes this dynamic perfectly.
81.
by ekelsen 6mo ago
Read the entries in the blog that predate AI, the style is very clearly different. I would be shocked if someone consciously or unconsciously adopted AI style so perfectly so quickly. Changing your style is not easy and if you're capab
82.
by ekelsen 6mo ago
I'm willing to bet hard money. I went to some of the oldest writing on the blog, the style is completely different.
83.
by ekelsen 6mo ago
It's absolutely a discussion of the article. It's literally about how it was written.
84.
by ekelsen 6mo ago
Ahhhh the AI writing! The goggles, they do nothing! Maybe the author should be more worried about AI allowing us to be lazy and forgetting how to write.
85.
by ekelsen 7mo ago
I'm fairly sure not because I have proof, but because of all the "not this, but that!" clauses. If you spend time generating text with LLMs, there is a style that you learn to recognize pretty quickly. Also, to be clear -- I&
86.
by ekelsen 7mo ago
The project is cool, but the LLM generated blog bothers my brain.
87.
by ekelsen 8mo ago
Same thing was true of his interview with Tony Blair. It was such a night and day difference between the two. Tony's skill, knowledge and polish saved the interview and made it enjoyable despite the interviewer.
88.
by ekelsen 8mo ago
As the comment below notes, the language should means it is recommended, but not required. And there are indeed platforms that do not implement the recommendation.
89.
by ekelsen 8mo ago
Thanks for the direct evidence that the output NaN is not required to be one of the input NaNs.
90.
by ekelsen 8mo ago
I also don't have access to the spec, but the people writing Rust do and they claim this: "IEEE makes almost no guarantees about the sign and payload bits of the NaN" https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3514

More ›