randomsearch

8 ms·

31.
by randomsearch 4y ago
For the record, I do not have a Tesla, a reusable rocket, or a flamethrower. I just think people do good and bad things and I try not to pick sides.
32.
by randomsearch 4y ago
> People at Tesla and SpaceX have achieved great things, not Musk You can’t be serious. So Musk can’t take any credit for what those companies have achieved? By that logic, he should also be blameless for any problems at Twitter.
33.
by randomsearch 4y ago
This seems like a big drama without the complexity that would justify it. Essentially, Twitter should have a clear and consistent moderation policy. Musk should not be able to arbitrarily change that policy, or certainly not when the situat
34.
by randomsearch 4y ago
What is the significance of the word “billionaire” in that sentence? Is it worse to be a hypocrite if you’re a billionaire? Do you think it’s unethical to be a billionaire?
35.
by randomsearch 4y ago
I think calling anyone defending Musk at any level a “cheerleader” isn’t a helpful framing of the debate. It’s important not to make any issue an “I align with X so you’re against me” conflict. Musk has achieved great, incredible things. Th
36.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Yes you've nailed it. Totally human to react to a personal incident. Needs to be guarded against.
37.
by randomsearch 4y ago
The existence of irrational numbers is in no way analogous to saying “the king of England is George V” and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. My general approach to discussion is to assume the most generous interpretation of a post.
38.
by randomsearch 4y ago
No, I think it’s relevant because the banned account was not just “sharing public information”, but actively tracking Musk using a combination of online data and real word surveillance. The fact that Musk previously said he wouldn’t ban the
39.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Previous poster said that GPT is to writing what calculators are to math. That's an interesting point, is this an analogy we can reason with? My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is i
40.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Oppenheimer
41.
by randomsearch 4y ago
The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.
42.
by randomsearch 4y ago
No real need for one until now I think.
43.
by randomsearch 4y ago
This is a really hard question to answer, but do you think in peacetime 1930s if you’d asked someone how long it would take to build the bomb, they’d say “we’re only a few decades away with proper funding”? The pay off achieved by accelerat
44.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Calculators are always correct.
45.
by randomsearch 4y ago
mmm well how long did GPT take? Say a quarter of that time?
46.
by randomsearch 4y ago
This is the best argument I've seen against my own position. I don't think I agree, which leads me to think that the error I have made was in disagreeing with the art galleries. I guess they also didn't want to deal with a de
47.
by randomsearch 4y ago
For all but the shortest fragments of text, I suspect the answer to this will be "yes" and this will be achieved in a short timeframe. Interact with Chat-GPT enough and you soon begin to tire of its middle-of-the-road prose. Becau
48.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Well, that is certainly false, because Chat-GPT was trained on the web and would surely have been exposed to content explaining policies on HN. So if this was generated by Chat-GPT (and it either was or was written by a human impersonating
49.
by randomsearch 4y ago
I agree. ChatGPT has made me realise the gulf between “short form essay” school writing and the professionals. Here’s an example article that begins with the cliched GPT-generated intro, and then switches up into crafted prose: https:&#x2F
50.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Ok, thanks very much. So what if the server just rebases the edit, and that results in the caption being set a second time? ie most recent wins. Don’t see how this would break a schema? Encoding “adding a caption” as “add an additional chil
51.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Curation and experts are coming back big time. Read it in the Economist -> high trust. Any public forum -> assume nonsense.
52.
by randomsearch 4y ago
I'm confused here - please could you explain. Here's what I see would happen: 1. User 1 adds a caption 2. User 2 adds a caption. 3. Both transmit to the server. 4. Server receives the first edit, applies it to the doc, broadcasts
53.
by randomsearch 4y ago
The figure I gave doesn't include health insurance... the UK doesn't do that, generally speaking. So you'd have to take that out.
54.
by randomsearch 4y ago
I’m not an academic.
55.
by randomsearch 4y ago
No idea why you’d include health premiums in that figure. Remove that and I just don’t believe you, outside of the most bureaucratic and exceptional companies (eg Google, where the money printing machine has led the company to insane levels
56.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Maybe, but also think about the prompts. Google might be able to infer far more about your intentions from a fully formed question rather than a search query. Which will allow them to target you more precisely, allow them to sell data to pr
57.
by randomsearch 4y ago
ChatGPT is such a strange technology, because it simultaneously makes me want to point out how limited it is, but also gives me the feeling that there may be something deeper here. I’ve spent a bit of time studying language models, and so f
58.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Yep. Wage of postdoc U.K. (real scenario) £40K. Uni charges govt over £100K. £60K “overheads”.
59.
by randomsearch 4y ago
Everyone even thinking about creating a startup should read "The Mom Test" first.
60.
by randomsearch 4y ago
It's not the same. If you ask a chat interface a question and it says "this is true", that's very different from a search engine containing a list of results where one of them might be untrue. For one thing, you can look

More ›