ninetyninenine

8 ms·

61.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
But the difference this time is now is that AI is heading in the direction where it can do ALL of WHAT you mentioned FOR you and everyone else.
62.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Why do humans pretend this is the most sensible way to go. You know on HN even with all these “polite” rules to make everything civil I still see shit that really just bends and goes around the rules. Example comments: “I’m baffled at how s
63.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Plumber is a category as well. The difference is that plumbers do not gather once a year to declare the Eternal Principles of Pipe. There is no Council of the Wrench. No one is arguing about the True Spirit of the Elbow Joint. They simply t
64.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
You’re not cynical. The writer is self absorbed and many many people became “hackers” for similar ”cool” reasons. Really you’re all just generic and overplayed programmers. It’s the same thing that causes programmers to call themselves ninj
65.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
>>They are defined by the runtime condition they represent. >Exactly. Exceptions represent conditions that violate the rules of the computing environment, while bugs represent conditions that violate “business” rules. You just move
66.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
You vibe review it. I’m actually only half kidding here.
67.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
[flagged]
68.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
[flagged]
69.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Isn't this an indication they are already in the lead? They currently have the best model that beats everyone on all quantitative metrics? Are you implying that the US has a better model somewhere?
70.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Is China dominating the US in terms of AI? Given that they currently have a model that beats the best models at all formal quantitative benchmarks? What is the state of AI in China? My personal feeling is that it doesn't dominate the z
71.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
I get your point. YOu're saying the world needs to be simulated in order to produce identical sensor output. I disagree. And my evidence for it is that the trendline clearly shows the rate of improvement for pictures is happening at a
72.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Follow the trend line. Give it only 5 years until nothing is distinguishable.
73.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
The measurement should be theft per capita or how many people did Sam Altman take from? Divide total GDP by the population and turn it into one unit. Ug's best smashing rock would be 1.
74.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
>>Even using our best injection protocol, Claude Opus 4.1 only demonstrated this kind of awareness about 20% of the time. >That’s not remotely close to “at will”. You are misunderstanding what “at will” means in this context. The r
75.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
>Not within the topic’s layer of abstraction. I can see you put a lot of thought into this, and if you were writing in a vacuum it might even be interesting, but discussion relies on context… You keep invoking “context” as a shield for a
76.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
This is not weather. We are modeling a picture or video or text. We are not modeling or simulating reality.
77.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Didn’t realize LLMs were restricted to only CS topics. Don’t understand why it restricted one category when the problem spans multiple categories.
78.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
First, your categories are not universal. They depend on the language and the runtime. 1. Divide by zero In IEEE floating point you can define it to yield Infinity or NaN and keep going. In some languages it raises an exception. In C with
79.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
False. More real data doesn’t mean anything when the data is indistinguishable from fake data. Sensors can’t tell if something is indistinguishable.
80.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
> Your second claim here is kind of falling into that same religion-esque certitude. Nope it’s not. We have logical causal test of introspection. By definition introspection is not stochastic parroting. If you disagree then it is a lingu
81.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Give it a couple of years and no one will be able to fully answer the question. I’m quite sure humanity as a whole will in the near future uncover several articles that are like this in quality and citations but find out they are entirely g
82.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Nah no one can say this. Especially given the fact this very article has stated we don’t know or understand what’s going on but we see glimmers of introspection. Anyone who says or pretends to know it is or isn’t a dead end doesn’t know wha
83.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
You win today. Give it a couple years and you’ll stop winning.
84.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Let me put it in another way. How do we know all the pictures in the article and the entire text isn’t fiction? My question isn’t fact or fiction, it’s just a question.
85.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
You’re still mistaking your own definitions for truth. You’re describing programming as if words create reality, not the other way around. Your claim that bugs “can only be determined by humans” and “machines cannot announce them” is like s
86.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
You’re arguing as though reality cares about your word boundaries. Saying “exceptions are not bugs” because one is a concept and the other is a data structure is like saying a flat tire isn’t a car problem because the air is outside the veh
87.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
Who still thinks LLMs are stochastic parrots and an absolute dead end to AI?
88.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
How do we know this isn’t AI?
89.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
No you haven’t been living under a rock your definitions are just off and you didn’t read carefully what I wrote. Or you’re just overly pedantic. I wrote bugs can cover exceptions. Think hard about what that sentence means in English. If I
90.
by ninetyninenine 1y ago
A little nuance: bugs are not just conditions that are programmatically sound. They can encompass exceptions. If a bug triggers an exception then with a strong compiler that is sufficiently advanced then these bugs can be found by the compi

More ›