jibal

9 ms·

151.
by jibal 2mo ago
The chess analogy is awful. If you simply want to know the answer to a chess problem, give it to the engine. Chess only lives on because it's a competition between humans to test their skill (just like bicycles, cars, trains didn'
152.
by jibal 2mo ago
Yep. Most people are in denial and don't look up.
153.
by jibal 2mo ago
Profoundly stupid people like that are everywhere, not just HN.
154.
by jibal 3mo ago
Logic failure. > maybe LLMs are seen to write as well as humans because most humans have poor reading comprehension skills? Whoa, ironic.
155.
by jibal 3mo ago
You're misunderstanding ... that's not at all the claim. Confusion and speculation is a consequence, not an indicator. Running around naked in traffic might well cause confusion and speculation, but it wouldn't cause anyone t
156.
by jibal 3mo ago
"how come" makes me want to vomit. (That "It’s a common idiom" is completely irrelevant. And note that it doesn't actually make me vomit.) Also, here's another thought. In my opinion, here's my opinion.
157.
by jibal 3mo ago
> I really dislike the writing style of being so "friendly" for people who don't know anything about the space that you obscure what the topic of the article is at all. Someone who writes a sentence like that is in no posi
158.
by jibal 3mo ago
No one celebrates the mistakes ... what an absurd strawman (qsera's). Rather we celebrate the scientific method that finds and corrects mistakes, as you say.
159.
by jibal 3mo ago
This is a ridiculous strawman argument that misconstrues what people are saying is good about science--that it constantly reexamines and improves upon its models. You're saying that it would be preferable to have an oracle that flawles
160.
by jibal 3mo ago
OpenAI and Anthropic are Public Benefit Corporations ... the GP is completely wrong.
161.
by jibal 3mo ago
This is completely wrong. OpenAI's governing charter explicitly prioritizes safety and benefit to humanity over profit, speed, or market dominance, and commits the organization to doing the very things you are saying they can't. A
162.
by jibal 3mo ago
The only one that isn't immediately obvious is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
163.
by jibal 3mo ago
It was done by the agentic framework that employed the LLM. LLMs are still stochastic parrots, but they are far from useless.
164.
by jibal 3mo ago
> Its also well known in academic research and from reading Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Lathe of Heaven".
165.
by jibal 3mo ago
I've sent cold emails to Noam Chomsky and Daniel Dennett and received prompt and friendly replies. (I had met each briefly and mentioned that in my emails ... that may have helped.) I emailed Chomsky on 9/11, asking about blowback
166.
by jibal 3mo ago
> But you did the same thing So your defense is a tu quoque fallacy? Note that "the same thing" is an admission.
167.
by jibal 3mo ago
> Things like this, it’s still hypothetical. Climate scientists can raise the alarm or whatever but have no credibility, certainly not when the proposed solution is some kind of global authoritarian communism, and it always is. Absolutel
168.
by jibal 3mo ago
You're talking nonsense. Among other things, had either the prosecution or the defense seen that the IP addresses didn't match, they would have pursued it further. "The IP addresses don't match but that just proves that
169.
by jibal 3mo ago
> It was fairly unique. Wrong. And in any case, if they had looked at the message history of the account name that they used to track him down and that was entered into evidence at the trial, they would not have found any criminal messag
170.
by jibal 3mo ago
The message history of what ? Not his account name, the one they had throughout the investigation and trial.
171.
by jibal 3mo ago
He doesn't have to prove that he didn't send them ... that's the prosecution's burden. (In the U.S. ... I know nothing about Canadian law.) But a competent lawyer could figure out how to prove it: get ahold of the IP add
172.
by jibal 3mo ago
They had the exchange with a minor from an account that everyone -- including the defense -- believed to be Klayme's. His only counterargument was that his email had been hacked, which was not true and not the correct explanation. But
173.
by jibal 3mo ago
Pedant? I was simply trying to be helpful. My point was that "the Observer Effect", a specific thing in physics, is clearly not the same as the "observer sensation" that TFA refers to and that someone here casually refer
174.
by jibal 3mo ago
No one but you capitalized it. They are referring to what TFA describes ... it uses the phrase "observer sensation" rather than "observer effect", but it is an effect.
175.
by jibal 3mo ago
You said that food is not meant to be enjoyable and that it's coincidental that it's tasty -- this is flat out wrong, so your attempt to argue by analogy (always a suspect process) was bogus. And your "something would be lost
176.
by jibal 3mo ago
It's now undead.
177.
by jibal 3mo ago
From the cited statute: > Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in t
178.
by jibal 3mo ago
> isn’t the entire point of tree-sitter that you can reuse old trees to make edit updates faster? No, not for ast-grep.
179.
by jibal 3mo ago
Destroying evidence is a crime, regardless of any warrant. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
180.
by jibal 3mo ago
It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place. People who think that tr

More ›