hypfer

11 ms·

241.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Maybe, but also the cat is out of the bag, as open weights models can do it. I suppose you could make having those illegal through on-device scanning and legally mandating usage of operating systems that do that? Not sure. Not sure if this
242.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Don't get your hopes up. What you're saying only applies to what is out there right now. New stuff will eventually just be locked down more. It's of course still huge to be able to do this with all tech up until this cut-off
243.
by hypfer 2mo ago
I think that depends on the audience. Thank you for caring though :)
244.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Idk man, but an engineer would've taken that and said something like: "Damn, yeah, good point, I shall add a sentence mentioning 5.3" Because an engineer feels secure in their knowledge so that such an oversight doesn't
245.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> Published Jun 8 2026 FYI: It's an "old" article
246.
by hypfer 2mo ago
What are you talking about. No. obviously it's not suddenly reasonable. I don't understand orbital mechanics, therefore, believing that the sun orbits the earth is entirely reasonable. Listen to yourself. __ Okay I've checked
247.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Don't let AI write your subheadlines. People can tell
248.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Aaah don't jinx it aaaaah
249.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> I sometimes wonder what's really happening here. Maybe with our large scale and large population we have exceeded Dunbar's number and the individual human cognitive "context window" so much that coherent social syst
250.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Okay, but, fair enough, now that you're here (and you're a person with a name and history attached to it), it's less of a waste of time to ponder this. So personally, I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals of eme
251.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> Why don't you directly engage the points in my other post like I just asked you to? Why would I? You've been talking about something completely orthogonal to what I was saying. > I don't need you to lecture me on seal
252.
by hypfer 2mo ago
I saw that your reply got filtered by the system, googled your name, thought "huh", then tried vouching, but to no avail. But either way. I think you might be operating in the mindset of a high-trust internet that no longer exists
253.
by hypfer 2mo ago
As I said, context. In the right space with real people, worthy of a debate. On HN? No. Not like this. Not here. Not without filtering the participants for real human beings.
254.
by hypfer 2mo ago
I've been going through comment revisions here, and none of them really cut it, but all of them wasted time. But regardless, you're using this as an insult. I did not. There is no debate to be had here. Just a bad faith shouting m
255.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Sorry, but if you're genuinely asking this not for trolling reasons then you should _really_ _really_ see a medical professional (not an insult). Online comment sections are not the correct place to unpack any of this. Which is indeed
256.
by hypfer 2mo ago
I wouldn't worry about that too much. I would worry about it, but not too much. People (generally speaking) also eventually stop eating just fastfood. Not all, but many. So I think we can have some faith in the self-regulation of other
257.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Cyberpsychosis. A next token predictor is not a being. Stop posting these things. Stop thinking these things.
258.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> I know people who are like that too. Cool. Question: Why _on earth_ would we make more of them?
259.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Not just coderabbit (though it is a bad offender). GitHub's copilot review feature is an equally miserable experience. That one loves talking in imperatives, regardless of the fact that it is a clueless machine. FWIW, this tells you a
260.
by hypfer 2mo ago
You seem to have misread my message and kinda forced it into the Pro AI/Anti AI culture war shape. Or at least my LLM thinks that you did.
261.
by hypfer 2mo ago
I would be curious as to which (kind of) model they've used there, how the tooling and prompts and all look like, etc. I bet that to make the business case viable (or rather profitable), it's probably something small and cheap. Bi
262.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> Will it be me for voicing this concern on the clearnet? No, because you're no threat to any such powers. For an oppressive regime, the optimal number of critical voices against it is non-zero. It needs to be enough that people get
263.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Amazing tech > An agent writes in an afternoon what a chatbot writes in a month But can you just.. not. Your tech is so good, it speaks for itself. Don't ruin that.
264.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Would be a shame if anyone did that at a large scale, invoking a PR desaster and forcing some change. Oh and illegal. Highly illegal and probably would get you in prison for a very long time + come with crippling debt too. So don't do
265.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Yes, but not any something, but a specific something shaped by taste.
266.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Yes, but that is still very confusing to me, because you're not paying other people money so that they just follow incentives without thinking, vision or backbone. The whole idea of buying something is giving people money for their (as
267.
by hypfer 2mo ago
They didn't "ban" them, but they did enable some attestation feature that effectively "bans" anything that isn't Google Android. Which still makes you wonder why Volkswagen is so keen on alienating what little
268.
by hypfer 2mo ago
> I'm not sure I agree that LLMs solve for the statistical mean The good thing is that you don't have to agree with that, as the fundamental technical reality does it for you. LLMs do work like that. They are just statistics an
269.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Do you people ever think of anything else other than pitching your next SaaS startup thing? Holy crap. Does your home have mirrors?
270.
by hypfer 2mo ago
Tbf, in this case, it flags based on something we had before AI as well. Open<Brand> + SEO on Steroids webpage is usually misaligned with the user. That didn't really change. The only thing that did change is that producing this

More ›