emp17344

7 ms·

151.
by emp17344 7mo ago
People are going to eat this up just because Karpathy is involved. This space is easily misled by hero worship.
152.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Socialization with other humans has so many benefits for happiness, mental health, and longevity. Conversely, interaction with LLMs often leads to AI psychosis and harms mental health. IMO, this is pretty strong evidence that interaction wi
153.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Supposedly exposes the Patterson-Gimlin film as a hoax, which is a big deal in the Bigfoot community.
154.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Yes, which is why every successful company has exactly 4 people and no more. Collaboration goes beyond your immediate team members - if you work for an organization, you’re supported by it in ways you may take for granted. Replace this stru
155.
by emp17344 7mo ago
The collaboration aspect is what many AI enthusiasts miss. As humans, our success is dependent on our ability to collaborate with others. You may believe that AI could replace many individual software engineers, but if it does so at the exp
156.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Way too many people have tied their egos to the success of AI.
157.
by emp17344 7mo ago
This is just standard automation, which always increases the scope and size of the economy. Automation actually results in a net increase in jobs.
158.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Is “world models” even a real thing, or just the latest AI buzzword?
159.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Uh, no? You think LLMs are AGI?
160.
by emp17344 7mo ago
Hold your horses, that’s a long way off. The best math AI tool we currently have, Aletheia, was only able to solve 13 out of 700 attempted open Erdos problems, only 4 of which were solved autonomously: https://arxiv.org/html
161.
by emp17344 7mo ago
What goalposts do you think are being moved? I constantly see AI enthusiasts use this phrase, but it’s not clear what goalposts they have in mind. Specifically, what is it that you want opponents to recognize that you believe they aren’t cu
162.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Amazing how you can just deflect any criticism of LLMs here by going “but humans suck too!” And the misanthropic HN userbase eats it up every time. We live during the healthiest period in human history due to the fact that doctors are highl
163.
by emp17344 8mo ago
I looked through this users comment history. This is pretty obviously a bot.
164.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Yes
165.
by emp17344 8mo ago
The same way I know Excel isn’t having a panic attack while dividing a column in half.
166.
by emp17344 8mo ago
You’re creating a false dichotomy to alienate perceived opponents. Frankly, it’s really annoying and close-minded, and you haven’t contributed anything to the conversation.
167.
by emp17344 8mo ago
That is absolutely not the consensus in neuroscience.
168.
by emp17344 8mo ago
“Tell me you’re a scary robot.” “I’m a scary robot.” “ Gasp ”
169.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Just because the LLM happens to be bad at something humans are also bad at, doesn’t mean the system is “emulating humans”.
170.
by emp17344 8mo ago
This is not due to AI. The industries with the most impact on labor productivity are retail, wholesale trade, and manufacturing, all of which aren’t really benefiting much from AI. The tech sector employs about 2% of the labor force. Even i
171.
by emp17344 8mo ago
You certainly don’t need to brush for longer than 2 minutes. Overbrushing is a concern as well.
172.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Denial of economic truths is denial of science. Not sure what to tell you. What parts do you reject?
173.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Your entire argument is derived from a pseudoscientific field without any peer-reviewed research. Mechanistic interpretability is a joke invented by AI firms to sell chatbots.
174.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Sounds like you agree this “evidence” lacks any semblance of scientific rigor?
175.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Mechanistic interpretability is a joke, supported entirely by non-peer reviewed papers released as marketing material by AI firms.
176.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Did you just invent a nonsense fallacy to use as a bludgeon here? “Stochastic parrot fallacy” does not exist, and there actually quite a bit of evidence supporting the stochastic parrot hypothesis.
177.
by emp17344 8mo ago
That’s because there’s no objective research on this. Similarly, there are no good citations to support your objection. They simply don’t exist yet.
178.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Oh, please. There’s always a way to blame the user, it’s a catch-22. The fact is that coding agents aren’t perfect and it’s quite common for them to fail. Refer to the recent C-compiler nonsense Anthropic tried to pull for proof.
179.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Ethical realists would disagree with you.
180.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Plagiarizing Stockfish doesn’t make me good at chess. Same principle applies.

More ›