retsibsi

6 ms·

61.
by retsibsi 5mo ago
> And how do you define pain and pleasure? They're not reducible, but I don't know if that means we don't have definitions; we can describe them well enough that most people (who aren't p-zombies or playing the scepti
62.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
The person they were responding to said "Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now." AFAIK this is bullshit, but I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong.
63.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
I don't mean this in an "I know better" way, just genuine curiosity: why couldn't you record a solution with pauses and then strip them from the replay file?
64.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
But if winning the game requires you to do shitty science and defraud the public, why play it at all? There's no desperation justification here, because anyone who can succeed in academia almost certainly has the brains and credentials
65.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
It's definitely important to change the game, because there will (sadly) always be a supply of unscrupulous people if dishonesty is rewarded. But I do think the incentive-focused approach sometimes undermines itself. One of the ways to
66.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
This is definitely a good approach but I don't think it's the only one! I absolutely agree that the idea that exercise has to be unpleasant is wrong and harmful. But there's a middle ground where the things you actively enjoy
67.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
Can you point me to some strong evidence that it's reliably counterproductive to avoid reading a book or watching a show that contains a trigger? I get that avoidance, in the sense of trying to push away all thoughts of the trauma and
68.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
"it does suggest that avoiding your triggers [...] provides no benefit" This is the part I'm sceptical of. When I look this up, I mostly find articles like https://theconversation.com/proceed-with-caution-the-
69.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
I've seen evidence that reading a trigger warning and then consuming the content might be worse than just consuming the content without a trigger warning. But is there any good reason to doubt that trigger warnings can be helpful in
70.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
I think I prefer the 'STEM people' approach of trying to say true things, rather than this superior approach of just saying things and then, when they turn out to be false, dismissing them as irrelevant. If the truth of the claim
71.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
> they love making every single release a world ender You've said this a couple of times, but it doesn't match my recollection, and I get the impression you're basically making it up based on vibes. (Please prove me wrong,
72.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
When 'oneanother' = strangers trying to get rich, when could we ever trust oneanother?
73.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
What are you actually claiming? Your take on their looks is irrelevant, and I don't know if you're hinting at anything specific when you say "People don't know who Dario is yet".
74.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
> Late nineties is approaching thirty decades ago Boy, this makes me feel old... oh wait :) (I agree with your point; early 90s vs. mid-10s are two very different worlds, in this context.)
75.
by retsibsi 6mo ago
I think it's a happy quirk of the blog's tagging system (#Programming is a category tag), but the ending feels quite profound: > Now at least everything is consistently bad. #Programming
76.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> Granted, higher attraction affords more opportunity to develop those skills I think this is largely a distraction from the direct effect. For any level of social skill, good-looking people at that level are perceived much more positive
77.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
Please don't do passive aggression here :(
78.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> >if a knife is not needed – such as when eating pasta – the fork can be held in the right hand > I mean it can be, but its fairly uncommon So the norm is that if you're eating one-handed, you use your non-dominant hand? That
79.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
I think you're framing this behaviour too generously. Laziness is one thing, lack of integrity is another, and this seems to be a straightforward case of cheating and lying.
80.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
No way! Code is whatever defines the behavior of the program unambiguously, or as close to unambiguously as makes little difference. A sufficiently detailed spec does that, and hence it is effectively higher level code. Code (together with
81.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> We literally have proof that an iron age ontology of meaning as represented in Chinese characters is 40% more efficient than naive statistical analysis over a semi phonetic language Can you elaborate? I think you're talking about
82.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
I'm with you on honesty, and I've certainly seen people tacitly trying to pass off AI outputs as human written. But I think we've reached a point where, in lots of contexts, we can't reasonably assume human authorship by
83.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
It looks a bit like that, but they gave their own repo a 3/5 rating and it's full of obvious LLMisms, so I think they're not totally anti-AI and are trying to be evenhanded. To me, the metaphor doesn't really work, espec
84.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> The only people who use LLMs "as a tool" are those who are incapable of doing it without using it at all. Do you mean that? It's clearly false, but I don't want to waste time gathering famous-person counterexamples
85.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
I do believe it, but for whatever it's worth (maybe not much!): If the author is willing and able to write understandable English, I'd prefer to read their version (even if it's very imperfect) than the LLM-polished version.
86.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> detractors-for-no-good-reason It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writing styles that you personally find offputting. The LLM smell i
87.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
A personal opinion: I would much prefer to read the rough, human version of this article than this AI-polished version. I'm interested in the content and the author clearly put thought and effort into it, but I'm constantly thrown
88.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
Fair enough. I wasn't there and this probably depends a lot on your tone and general vibe, the dynamic between you and the interviewer up until then, and so on. I do think it's almost always a risky move, but I think I assumed too
89.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
I'm not going to pretend I'm great at reading social situations, but I think your approach in this story would have annoyed 99% of interviewers, even if they genuinely valued directness. If they'd asked for feedback on the in
90.
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> If we accept that any one person can take responsibility for their feelings then it follows that everyone is responsible for their own mind. I don't think this follows! People are very different, so something can be genuinely true

More ›