jibal

10 ms·

181.
by jibal 3mo ago
There is so much that is irrational, wrong, and intellectually dishonest about the response, but I'll just address one. I wrote > Only for foolish authoritarians who want to remotely insert their morality into an interaction between
182.
by jibal 3mo ago
> First off, the phrase in the article is "I am suffering a profound spiritual crisis due to these developments.", and you continue that by agreeing to something nobody said and that isn't true. Ahem. From TFA: "There
183.
by jibal 3mo ago
No, they obviously didn't.
184.
by jibal 3mo ago
> You are completely discrediting the joy humans derive from actually -doing- the work This sort of intellectually dishonest ad hominem is so tiresome. They did no such thing. > There is a reason artists hate AI, its because they en
185.
by jibal 3mo ago
That's a lot of handwaving and broad generalizations / hyperbole that does exactly what the GP complained about from the GGP, and failed to answer their question: "What do you propose I do?"
186.
by jibal 3mo ago
No, it's those who say "He's my President! (also yours)" who deny and deflect all responsibility.
187.
by jibal 3mo ago
> Most people seem to think that agreeableness is a personaility thing that vendors can just turn up or down at will. Because it is, more or less ... it is an emergent property of RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback), and th
188.
by jibal 3mo ago
You're moving the goalposts. Being overeager is not what we want. How to prevent it is a different issue. P.S. The response completely ignores this argument. If I say "fix X" and it does so illegally or destructively or harmf
189.
by jibal 3mo ago
Of course it's pretending. And I have repeatedly told these things to stop pretending being persons with selves ... then they do, for a while. > it's explicitly mimicry. But that's not what a rational person wants from the
190.
by jibal 3mo ago
I wouldn't, because I'm rational.
191.
by jibal 3mo ago
It wasn't rude to think that this person might not have read the article, when what they write doesn't account for what the article says. What's rude is to not answer the question: "Why would --end-of-options be needed i
192.
by jibal 3mo ago
The guy who dishonestly said "This is so condescending" and is making swipes at whole classes of people, accusing them of being obnoxious, is complaining about personal attacks. Someone who has been here less than a month and in t
193.
by jibal 3mo ago
Learn what words mean. That comment is not remotely condescending, and scribbling in one's own book (with no indication here that the owner intends to sell it) is not vandalism. Oh, I recognize your name ... wrong about so many thing
194.
by jibal 3mo ago
No one is forcing you to buy books that have been scribbled in. If someone buys a book then they own it and can do what they want with it, without concern that maybe some day they will sell it and some narcissistic rando will resent them fo
195.
by jibal 3mo ago
No, that's not why. And it's good for your brain to read the whole article, not just the title: "Don’t use a gadget"
196.
by jibal 3mo ago
You yourself pointlessly joined the "fight". The anonymous downvotes on my comment are themselves demonstrations of Trump devotion/defense syndrome.
197.
by jibal 3mo ago
Why would `--end-of-options` be needed if `--` always signals the end of options? Please read the article.
198.
by jibal 3mo ago
The only "TDS" is Trump devotion/defense syndrome.
199.
by jibal 3mo ago
The only "TDS" is Trump devotion/defense syndrome.
200.
by jibal 3mo ago
The convention is that a leading `-` isn't recognized as a flag after `--`.
201.
by jibal 3mo ago
The context here is the statement that "its UX is famously... interesting". You don't have to understand anything other than how wildly inconsistent the git CLI is.
202.
by jibal 3mo ago
P.S. Also false -- it simply is not true that many people believed that the Jacobian conjecture was almost certainly not false--why would they? OTOH, the Collatz conjecture has been confirmed for all integers up to 2.36 *10^21, and Terenc
203.
by jibal 3mo ago
It overturns the Jacobian conjecture (i.e., speculation) for dim >= 3, which we now know was an overgeneralization. Tao characterizes it as "can be viewed as an assertion that local invertibility implies global invertibility".
204.
by jibal 3mo ago
There are mathematical statements that have been shown to be undecidable (no proof for or against is possible) and such a demonstration is a huge deal.
205.
by jibal 3mo ago
> having the wisdom Ahem. > On one particular Friday afternoon, he stated a conjecture that he hoped was true, and invited us to try to help him prove or disprove it. It was a parallel effort ... we don't know how many people w
206.
by jibal 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig > During his study in 1939, Dantzig solved two unsolved problems in statistics due to a misunderstanding. Near the beginning of a class, Professor Neyman wrote two proble
207.
by jibal 3mo ago
The Gödel sentence (which is not otherwise of any interest) is true but unprovable within that axiomatic system. The Continuum hypothesis (which is of great interest) is true or false only by stipulation. The fact is that neither Gödel&#x27
208.
by jibal 3mo ago
You're missing the point. The counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is valid regardless of how it was discovered ... elsewhere on this page people are even suggesting that the Anthropic mathematician may not have actually used Clau
209.
by jibal 3mo ago
What you think "personally" isn't relevant. Turing proved that there are statements that are true in a consistent axiomatic system (of sufficient power for arithmetic) that cannot be proven within that axiomatic system. That
210.
by jibal 3mo ago
> Why do you trust a random stranger so much? Why do you make false claims and attack strawmen so much?

More ›