johnfn

15 ms·

271.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Was this comment written by an LLM? It seems like it was to me. e.g. the “paradox” is not a paradox at all and is just an obvious statement.
272.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Your response is definitely on the top 5% of reasonableness from AI skeptics, so I appreciate that :-) But, if you don't mind me going on a rant: the hallucinations thing. It kind of drives me nuts, because every day someone trots out
273.
by johnfn 7mo ago
This is just completely inaccurate. There is more to learn now than ever before, and I find myself spending more and more time teaching myself things that I never before would have been able to find time to understand.
274.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Time and time again that I observe it is the AI skeptic that is not reacting with curiosity. This is almost fundamentally true, as in order to understand a new technology you need to be curious about it; AI will naturally draw people who ar
275.
by johnfn 7mo ago
I think everyone at the time was hoping that Google was going to take on their pet project; my friends and I certainly were. But I don't think that has to do with my comment, which is around a more metaphorical use of the word 'as
276.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Why does it seem like everyone is having trouble grasping an analogy? GP was saying that as it doesn't make sense for a power company to solve trains (because it is out of their area of expertise) it doesn't make sense for Anthrop
277.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Is it really so different than asking the search company back in '01 to make a mail client, a browser, a maps app, ...?
278.
by johnfn 7mo ago
I don’t think that addresses my point. I understand a lot of companies are firing under the guise of AI, but it’s unclear to me whether AI is actually driving this - especially when the article we are both responding to says: > We find n
279.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Aren't we both responding to an article which says: > We find no systematic increase in unemployment for highly exposed workers since late 2022
280.
by johnfn 7mo ago
This seems unlikely. My company is in competition with a number of other startups. If AI removes one of my co-workers, our competitors will keep the co-worker and out-compete us.
281.
by johnfn 7mo ago
Was this comment written by an LLM? It has a lot of the tell-tale signals, and pangram gives it a 100% chance of being written by AI.
282.
by johnfn 8mo ago
That's a fair point, but I think Dario's quote in GP corroborates ACX's story quite well: > "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."
283.
by johnfn 8mo ago
The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me. > *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break t
284.
by johnfn 8mo ago
This seems pretty explicitly to fit your case: > Don't quite fit the criteria If you maintain something the ecosystem quietly depends on, apply anyway and tell us about it.
285.
by johnfn 8mo ago
If you can point me to any "random text generator" that scores a 76.8 on SWEBench, after any number of iterations, or in fact is competitive on any benchmark at all, I'll happily switch to it. Until then, I don't think t
286.
by johnfn 8mo ago
My statement is that if your only hallucinations are type errors, that can be solved by simply wrapping the LLM in a harness that says "Please continue working until `yarn run tsc` is clean". Yes, the LLM still hallucinates, but i
287.
by johnfn 8mo ago
I'm not interested in getting into some argument about who has "more knowledge in the subject matter". I'm genuinely curious: do you think Opus 4.6 hallucinates just as much as GPT-3.5?
288.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Do you really think that Opus 4.6 hallucinates to exactly the same degree as GPT-3.5? I am mystified how you can hold this perspective.
289.
by johnfn 8mo ago
My comment was about code, not fact checking - that’s why I said they were a solved problem provided you use static typechecking and tests.
290.
by johnfn 8mo ago
I mean to say that code generation never hallucinates. I suppose that was unclear.
291.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Couldn’t that problem be solved with static typechecking?
292.
by johnfn 8mo ago
I'm curious about the statement that hallucinations are "fundamentally unsolvable". I don't think an AI agent has left a hallucination in my code - by which I mean a reference to something which doesn't exist at all
293.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Erdos famously took amphetamines his whole life, and they made him fabulously productive: > In 1979, Graham bet Erdös $500 that he couldn't stop taking amphetamines for a month. Erdös accepted the challenge, and went cold turkey for
294.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Yes, but OpenAI has 900M+ user reach, plus staggering amounts of cash, plus early access + deep integration with the latest and greatest models. I hardly think that is tantamount to "just an API call".
295.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Yes -- but both Google and Meta didn't start off as an advertising company - they started off providing a service a lot of people liked, and then eventually added ads to it. My assumption (somewhat implicit, admittedly) is that there
296.
by johnfn 8mo ago
This article is significantly better written than most anti-OpenAI/AI articles, and for that I am really grateful. I am generally an AI booster (lol), so I am happy to read well-considered thought pieces from people who disagree with m
297.
by johnfn 8mo ago
I just see the same thing over again. I flag some article, then later I look at the comments and everyone is saying "rah rah there's a cabal of vote bots that flag articles". Obviously not - it was me? Is it so unthinkable th
298.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Think about what you are saying for a moment. Why would "bot armies" come to Hacker News of all places to flag pro-Palestine articles? Don't you think it's a much more reasonable conclusion that people read the site guid
299.
by johnfn 8mo ago
I'm here to have interesting conversations. Downvotes naturally inhibit that by pushing my comment out of sight. There is nothing "pathetic" about that.
300.
by johnfn 8mo ago
Dang, this is so good. Thanks for the share. Reminds me a bit of The Avalanches - in particular, Frontier Psychiatrist.

More ›