qarl

7 ms·

121.
by qarl 1mo ago
I believe the hearings were based in the language of propaganda- not magic. I could be wrong. Do you have a citation for the magic?
122.
by qarl 1mo ago
I think it's pretty clear that the U.S. and China are in an AI arms race - and I didn't see where the essay said anything like "boogey man". I think it merely cites China as the competitor. No? But I agree entirely - t
123.
by qarl 1mo ago
OH! Then you might be interested in my work. I've got a fairly robust symbol recovery system (using LLMs of course). It makes reading the code so much easier. OH OOOHHH! I should incorporate my thing into rizin, shouldn't I? Th
124.
by qarl 1mo ago
Friend - there are always going to be crazy people. You can't cite them as evidence that the craziness was widespread. And you shouldn't call names. HN does not like that one bit.
125.
by qarl 1mo ago
I believe you're straw manning the situation.
126.
by qarl 1mo ago
> To argue that Facebook somehow magically tricks humans into voting against their will and overrides democracy is to argue that democracy itself inherently does not work. But we know that propaganda works. That doesn't sit well wi
127.
by qarl 1mo ago
> Why would he play the victim internally? To create evidence that he didn't know about it?
128.
by qarl 1mo ago
Yeah... I think you just made that up.
129.
by qarl 1mo ago
Yeah, I should be using Ghidira in my toolchain. I didn't know it existed so I had to reinvent the wheel. Although - Ghidira is often wrong about what code does. Make it run tests to verify its theories? BINGO.
130.
by qarl 1mo ago
THAT is an excellent idea. Thank you.
131.
by qarl 1mo ago
Speaking of obscured code: I'm using AI to decompile old arcade games. I am finding the craziest anti-tampering stuff. Three different routines - each watches the code of the others - and if anything changes - tank the machine by jump
132.
by qarl 1mo ago
An LLM agent is literally Turing complete. There is nothing it cannot compute. Anytime you hear someone saying "it can't do this, or that..." they are factually incorrect. The denial around these issues is beyond creepy: AI
133.
by qarl 1mo ago
> People have fixed software bugs with zero knowledge of what the code is doing and no knowledge of the programming language at hand, purely by statistical pattern matching. Is that even true? Beyond an extremely simple example?
134.
by qarl 1mo ago
HA! I'm of the belief that it is impossible to predict other than it's going to keep improving. If you read this essay, you see quickly that his implicit assumption is that this is now the way things will remain. It is literally
135.
by qarl 1mo ago
I despise the "next token predictor" framing. In order to predict the next token in this line "The solution to your problem is..." the entity needs to be able to solve your problem. Which is well beyond what people thin
136.
by qarl 1mo ago
I love how every one of these "how do we cope now" essays makes the assumption that the progress has now stopped, and what we currently have is what needs to be adapted to. Humanity really does not want to look at what is happenin
137.
by qarl 1mo ago
Because they are trained to behave like people.
138.
by qarl 1mo ago
As a creator - I am delighted that I can now create at about 20X the rate of what I could before. Maybe more. I have produced more cool shit in the last 6 months than I have in the preceding 10 years. It's an amazing time to be alive
139.
by qarl 1mo ago
> I do not agree to disagree I am delighted to hear you agree with me. Bye now.
140.
by qarl 1mo ago
I get the feeling we may just have to agree to disagree here.
141.
by qarl 1mo ago
This language has been used in this way for 70 years. These are the words that are used to discuss these things. Are you suggesting this plan has been in the works for 70 years? And no, your theories do not make for actual evidence. The f
142.
by qarl 1mo ago
My friend, I attacked the statement, not the person, just as you recommended. I see you have trouble with the distinction too. And I'm pretty sure "I don’t know what spectrum you’re on" is also an insult. Naughty naughty.
143.
by qarl 1mo ago
WHOAH that is a myopic statement. It sounds like the legalistic argument an autistic person would make. > responding in kind can only ever make you look like an idiot. LOL. I'm so glad you didn't just insult me there. I thin
144.
by qarl 1mo ago
My apologies. I should have said: this is wildly unhinged.
145.
by qarl 1mo ago
Implying I'm being naive. I apologize, but I don't find the syntactic rules of this site to be well thought out. "Your comments are stupid" and "You are stupid" carry the same meaning.
146.
by qarl 1mo ago
Why are you replying on this comment? As near as I can tell, I was in fact right. I just didn't follow the laws of HN communication to express it, on a thread where the person I replied to didn't follow it either. It would have b
147.
by qarl 1mo ago
So I can say "that is wildly unhinged" but I can't say "you are wildly unhinged"? You understand that's pedantic, right? But ok, noted: must be pedantic on HN. Do not use second person. EDIT: SHIT! My bad.
148.
by qarl 1mo ago
You are ascribing intent where you have no evidence or proof - to an action that was in wide usage long before your villains existed. > computer science papers from 70 years ago Those terms continue to be used in the community. They wer
149.
by qarl 1mo ago
I'm wrong for pointing out that this entire line of thought - AI companies are trying to shirk blame by pinning it on their software - is unhinged? No friend, I am not. It is hysterics pure and simple.
150.
by qarl 1mo ago
"Learning" is Samuel 1959, "agent" is standard textbook AI, "inference" is older still.

More ›