geraneum

3 ms·

1.
by geraneum 5d ago
> direct your anger where it belongs. Where does it belong?
2.
by geraneum 6d ago
> misapplied “reductio ad absurdum”
3.
by geraneum 6d ago
> The reality is same for your angle: nothing is gatekeeping or stopping anyone from developing the craft the old way That’s not my angle, but I’ll grant you that for the moment: > The sole issue here is compensation. Not the case her
4.
by geraneum 6d ago
For anyone interested, this is misapplied “reductio ad absurdum”. It doesn’t work.
5.
by geraneum 6d ago
> The biggest barrier was time. Only if you have all the rest sorted, and that’s a big if. It’s also circular. You need time to achieve most of it. > And good luck trying to find contributors who want to work for free, when they alrea
6.
by geraneum 6d ago
The reality is that no one was gatekeeping you or anyone else from doing whatever you wanted with free software. The barriers were knowledge, understanding, expertise, and hard work, none of which AI fixes for you. The premise here is that
7.
by geraneum 6d ago
> You have to tell me more. Sure I can simplify it. The article claims an important hint was missed. A hint, not the solution and not the key. Then lists the “methods” that people have tried and presumably missed, which of course is not
8.
by geraneum 6d ago
Not really. The article is obviously misleading. The response can’t address the criticism in a meaningful way as a whole, hence going Jordan Peterson on it.
9.
by geraneum 7d ago
> Preventing access to information is bad, but likely less harmful than deception. It’s a mistake to separate these. They go hand in hand and mich further as you climb up the authoritarian ladder. What do you think is the style of censor
10.
by geraneum 7d ago
> Not a single one of my examples was committed by the government. Interesting! How did all of these social media companies make a 180 suddenly after power shifts in Washington? > You're floating in the river,… Of course but this
11.
by geraneum 7d ago
> simply authoritarian control There’s nothing simple about authoritarian control. Who says we have less censorship? Sure people can tweet all kind of stuff without getting banned. Fine, but at the same time US president is removing news
12.
by geraneum 7d ago
It’s too soon for such a conclusion IMO. The pervasive Iran-like censorship I was talking about will rear its ugly head when those authoritarian regimes are established. It’s a tool and I can assure you it will be used extensively. This is
13.
by geraneum 7d ago
> You don't know what it feels like not because you're so free, but because you agree with the ruling regime on what it considers the most important questions. We don’t know what it feels like because we collectively participat
14.
by geraneum 7d ago
Not to minimize the impact of social media censorship, but one should really live in a country like Iran to grasp what pervasive censorship is. Most people born and raised in the relative freedoms provided in modern democratic systems have
15.
by geraneum 7d ago
I think we can frame it as LLMs materializing existing potential. It seems like there needs to be an underlying potential to tap into, without which, the results could be slop.
16.
by geraneum 7d ago
Whatever happened with the Apple lawsuit?
17.
by geraneum 8d ago
Did you just paraphrase yourself in quotation marks?
18.
by geraneum 8d ago
This is bad advice for anything serious that can be subtly wrong. I’ve had Fable being consequentially wrong about what a certain, rather small, code block does in our codebase. Not even on something very complex which wasted a lot of time
19.
by geraneum 8d ago
I don’t get the bit about public transport. Do you mean it’s unhealthy because public transport is stressful?
20.
by geraneum 12d ago
> but the clue is that the key is the "32 Proquiritations" immediately before the numbers You're conflating the solution with the methodologies, which is what the article is listing in the original quote. The rest of your
21.
by geraneum 12d ago
Apparently neither found it worth pursuing, and just phoned it in. > “…leider gerade keine zeit das nachzuschauen.“
22.
by geraneum 12d ago
It is actually the correct method but not the correct solution. Nevertheless, the claim is not that this is the correct solution, nor that matters for the point being made.
23.
by geraneum 12d ago
> Various people attempted to decipher it, but it seems they were missing one crucial hint. They tried methods like frequency analysis, substitution, and homophonic substitution, and none of these approaches worked. That’s because they m
24.
by geraneum 12d ago
In your first link one of the comments says: > Die Lösung müsste eigentlich mit Hilfe des Buches zu finden sein (..who worthily will hear or read this book..) And there’s another one that says: > jeweils 32 zahlen pro reihe. erste zei
25.
by geraneum 12d ago
Someone wrote a prompt, that included instructions for finding the problem itself and got handed a solution by a machine trained on all available text. I don’t see any achievement for the prompter. As for the machine, we can’t keep being pe
26.
by geraneum 13d ago
It doesn’t stay within those constraints. It’s the deterministic harness and a bit of false uniqueness effect in us that make such appearances.
27.
by geraneum 13d ago
Horses work, Telegraph works, Gas lamps work, etc.
28.
by geraneum 14d ago
There’s answer for you there if you’re willing to see it, whether you agree with it or not. So there’s that.
29.
by geraneum 14d ago
Deal with the threat of open models with this one simple trick.
30.
by geraneum 14d ago
> LLMs are not like lawnmowers at all. Lawnmowers never break out of your garden and into your neighbor's house and eat their dog Do you work for one of these companies? If not, you have no knowledge of the prompt they put in to ini

More ›