habinero

15 ms·

421.
by habinero 1y ago
People say things like this all the time. It's as reliable as the latest prediction for the rapture and about as scientific.
422.
by habinero 1y ago
> And most people get by on those jobs by faking the emotional component If you think this is true, I would say you should leave artificial life alone until you can understand human beings better.
423.
by habinero 1y ago
Honestly, a lot of it seems like it's lazy narcissism. They don't think other people have value or intelligence, therefore this machine that bullshits well has to be equally useful.
424.
by habinero 1y ago
> I feel every human just regurgitates words too. And most are worse than an AI That's not a fact, that's just cynicism mixed with sociopathy. I hear this argument a lot from AI bros, and...y'all don't know how much y
425.
by habinero 1y ago
The power grid absolutely can fail catastrophically and is a lot more fragile than people think. Texas nearly ran into this during their blackout a few years ago -- their grid got within a few minutes of complete failure that would have req
426.
by habinero 1y ago
I don't need to feel "special". My concerns are around the people who (want to) believe their statistical models to be a lot more than they really are. My current working theory is there's a decent fraction of humanity t
427.
by habinero 1y ago
Since we have no idea how humans think, that's a pretty unfair and unanswerable question. Humans wrote LLMs, so it's pretty fair to say one is a lot more complex than the other lol
428.
by habinero 1y ago
You can nitpick the idea that this or that model does or does not return the same thing _every_ time, but "don't anthropomorphize the statistical model" is just correct. People forget just how much the human brain likes to fi
429.
by habinero 1y ago
Yes? It's silly to think Big Epipen is out to get you. I don't even know what you think your point is. We do the best with the information we have. If in 30 years, the standard of care changes due to new consensus, that's a g
430.
by habinero 1y ago
Same could be said for your post.
431.
by habinero 1y ago
Not really. Biden had a press pool like every president before them, and the press was free to disagree with him. He just didn't do interviews. Trump's DoD just threatened to revoke press credentials of anyone who reported on thin
432.
by habinero 1y ago
> Biden was senile for years and the press were telling us it's a right-wing conspiracy theory, until the point the Democrat party dropped him because he was senile. You, uh, you do know this whole idea is right wing propaganda, rig
433.
by habinero 1y ago
You're European. You have zero excuse for buying into that ridiculous propaganda.
434.
by habinero 1y ago
No, it's a real thing with a real meaning. Nation-state actors are, in general, very well-funded and sophisticated, and therefore much more difficult (and expensive) to defend against and clean up after. They tend to have different m
435.
by habinero 1y ago
Nation-state actors do this kind of stuff all the time, and they're difficult to defend against because they tend to be well-funded and therefore able to hire talent, have resources, and spend money on intelligence and 0days. And they&
436.
by habinero 1y ago
My cynical working theory is this kind of thing basically never works but sometimes it just happens to coincide with useful code.
437.
by habinero 1y ago
Haters gonna hate, but the haters aren't always wrong. If you just want people to agree with you, that's not a discussion.
438.
by habinero 1y ago
People misunderstand the system, I think. It's not holy writ, you take the parts of it that work for your team and ditch the rest. Iterate as you go. The failure modes I've personally seen is an organization that isn't intere
439.
by habinero 1y ago
Every time I hear someone say something like this, I think of the pigeons in the Skinner box who developed quirky superstitious behavior when pellets were dispensed at random.
440.
by habinero 1y ago
No. I see AI people use this reasoning all the time and it's deeply misleading. "You can't explain how humans do it, therefore you can't prove my statistical model doesn't do it" is kinda just the god of the ga
441.
by habinero 1y ago
No. This is the equivalent of an astronomer telling a blacksmith they're using the term "metal" incorrectly. Your jargon does not override everyone else's language.
442.
by habinero 1y ago
> currently-accepted industry-wide definition of "reasoning" You can't both (1) declare "reasoning" to be something wildly different than what humans mean by reasoning and (2) insist people are wrong when they us
443.
by habinero 1y ago
It's essentially impossible to sue ICE, they have qualified immunity. Police have been doing similar things for years.
444.
by habinero 1y ago
I'll just tell them you're here illegally, then. If they're not going to check, you're just as vulnerable as anyone else.
445.
by habinero 1y ago
Also security engineer here. You're thinking too small and in the wrong direction. You're not protecting against 2G downgrade attacks, you're protecting against an attacker who has a whole library of things to try on you to s
446.
by habinero 1y ago
You don't "program" with punch cards any more than you "program" with text files. They were just the mechanism to get your code into the computer before hard drives and compilers existed.
447.
by habinero 1y ago
And plenty of people complain about "overtuned" music with robotic drums and overcorrected vocals that drain all the imperfections out of the sound. (Here's a musician's take on it: https://youtu.be/BDJF
448.
by habinero 1y ago
> In an attempt to reach out to clear up any misunderstandings, I opened a Github issue on my forked repo, tagged the lodash org and primary maintainer, and explained the situation. I gave context as to why I had opened the PR, and what
449.
by habinero 1y ago
Yeah, people romanticize them, but they're basically a cult.
450.
by habinero 1y ago
That's not how anything works. The Constitution literally says so. If you want a king, just say so.

More ›