jklinger410

5 ms·

31.
by jklinger410 5mo ago
Why don't you show us how AI will not create abject poverty? How are we not going to be begging whoever controls chip fabs and electrical plants for compute tokens? HOW!? EXPLAIN IT.
32.
by jklinger410 5mo ago
> You can't have it both ways. Yes you can. They use AI and also despise it because it will turn the world into one big caste system. Ones with access to compute, and ones without.
33.
by jklinger410 5mo ago
If you want people to like AI, show them a future that doesn't leave them in abject poverty.
34.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
> What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not
35.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
> The government is only providing the venue for resolving the dispute. The government provides the venue, the decider, the rules of engagement, and enforces the decision. The government stands on the side of the plaintiff, ready to turn
36.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
Laws that force the government to violate the constitution are unconstitutional. So yes, a violation but with more steps. A ruling in a civil court that is enforced by a government is the same thing as the government ruling it, but through
37.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
> The government won't stop him from saying whatever he chooses to say. The government might enforce costs, should he be sued for what he says and is found liable. This is just a shell game of limiting speech.
38.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
> But the Supreme Court has found that this is an acceptable limitation on the first amendment rights, with the specific limitations. Right, and I think this example is more about maintaining a civil society than it is strictly about fre
39.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
What happens if you don't pay your civil liabilities? Civil vs criminal is a silly distinction when it comes to discussing right suppression. Jail time is not the only way to suppress a right.
40.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
The word prosecution aside. Who rules on the outcome and enforces it? The state.
41.
by jklinger410 6mo ago
How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.
42.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
A rare W for Cox here.
43.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
And people get irrationally upset when you bring it up!
44.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
> What truths do people believe that are wrong, and what do you believe the truth to be? I'm not certain. > And why would they protect a generation and from what and why? It's very common to delay information to minimize its
45.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
All you have to do is look at how the Egyptian government handles the site to draw this conclusion. I don't care to comment on what they may be hiding.
46.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
> This framing is hardly fair, since it treats AI as an incinerator of knowledge rather than the democratizer of knowledge that it is Paying for access to information is not democracy
47.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
Oppression is a spectrum. I wouldn't compare "taxes" to something like, I don't know, killing gay people and forcing women to cover their bodies and hair.
48.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
> Especially when most left leaning folks in western world has hard sympathies with hamas I'm not going to take your comment seriously due to this wild opinion.
49.
by jklinger410 7mo ago
I think citizens in those countries recognize that allowing a repressive regime to exist simply for cheap oil costs is not necessarily a good solution, either.
50.
by jklinger410 8mo ago
> The fact that you think that the rules of you being a father are somehow different than the rules of you driving to a appointment indicate that you have a completely incoherent world view based on two incompatible models of epistemolog
51.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
Yes, we're in complete agreement about conceptual integrity. Reality is such that, without integrity, you can prove almost anything you want. As long as your bar for "prove" is at the very bottom.
52.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
Your response along with others is proving my point in an unfortunate way. If you think I'm saying that the world is not infinitely complex, you are missing the point.
53.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Simplicity comes from strong definitions, and "infinite" complexity comes from weak ones. If you're always chasing the next technicality then maybe you didn't really k
54.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
> Most of my life post university I realized most of questions have complex answers, it is never as simple as you expect. I find the complication comes from poor definitions, poor understanding of those definitions, and pedantic argument
55.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
> I wouldn't call a misformed reference a critical issue, it happens. That's why we have peer reviews. Crazy to say this in a discussion where peer review missed hallucinated citations
56.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
I really think it is. The primary function of these publications is to validate science. When we find invalid citations, it shows they're not doing their job. When they get called on that, they cite the volume of work their publication
57.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect. How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process? > Isn't disqualifyi
58.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
> the content of the papers themselves are not necessarily invalidated. For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex (a formatted reference) Maybe I'm overreactin
59.
by jklinger410 9mo ago
> There is another fallacy in play where people pushing these debates want you to think that there is only one single cause of CVD or health issues: Either sugar, carbs, fat, or something else. The game they play is to point the finger a
60.
by jklinger410 10mo ago
> The simple evidence for this is that everyone who has invested the same resources in AI has produced roughly the same result. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Deepseek, etc. There's no evidence of a technological moat or a competi

More ›