sanderjd

61 ms·

751.
by sanderjd 1y ago
You're preaching to the choir! Despite this history, the Court is still going to have to reiterate this.
752.
by sanderjd 2y ago
I mean I don't know if you consider the president of the United States "serious" (I certainly don't), but this is clearly his thesis.
753.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah I don't doubt any of this myself. But the Court is still going to have to rule on it. Which isn't so weird. The Court has to reiterate rulings sometimes. The thing that is unusual is that I have some genuine uncertainty aro
754.
by sanderjd 2y ago
To be clear, I agree. It's a dangerous thesis, but also just idiotic. They're doing a speed run of turning the US into North Korea, where nobody will want to travel here or trade with us.
755.
by sanderjd 2y ago
The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants. The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existe
756.
by sanderjd 2y ago
The term "hobby horse" does not imply pettiness. I don't think I've deflected at all. You're just talking about something orthogonal to the thing I was asking about in this thread, which (predictably) totally derail
757.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Still nope.
758.
by sanderjd 2y ago
I meant my question to be a rhetorical question, but that was totally unclear in what I wrote. What I meant was to imply "the executive isn't even granted very many powers directly in the text". I agree with you about the pow
759.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah that's the thing, what powers are even granted directly to the executive by the text? It seems to me that the whole unitary executive theory is based on the clause "The executive Power shall be vested in a President", wh
760.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah this is a silly argument. The check on the actions of independent agencies is the same as the check on the actions of all agencies. The executive obviously isn't a check on the actions of executive agencies...
761.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Nah, people have got to stop buying into this unitary executive stuff! Independent agencies have oversight and accountability. Congress can do whatever they want with them whenever they want. I think it's imminently reasonable to say
762.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yes. This is very closely tied into the ability to admire the organization, at least for me. It's very hard for me to take pride in my work for an organization I think is bad.
763.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Ha, someone who has money to invest asked me about an investment thesis at the end of 2022 related to the release of chatgpt. I said nvidia seemed like the most clearly likely to benefit in terms of public equities, but he said no way, it w
764.
by sanderjd 2y ago
This is actually one of the great entrepreneurship lessons of my career, which I think about a lot. Around 2009, as smart phones were on their exponential leg up, and when I was still pretty new in the workplace, I remember thinking (and ta
765.
by sanderjd 2y ago
In addition to what others have said about loyalty to the people who happen to work at a company, which I agree with entirely: I think it's good to have admiration for the company (or any organization) you work for. If you can&#x27
766.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Oh... I don't really see why "letter" is a more confusing way to describe a paper size than "A4"... My general point is just that I'm surprised so many people seem to notice and care about paper size in general
767.
by sanderjd 2y ago
This just isn't true that one thing is hard and the other is impossible. Both things are nearly impossible to a similar degree. What system is "built ... to create social value"? You mean government? My friend, I'm sorry
768.
by sanderjd 2y ago
How is this "confusing"? I don't think I've ever thought about paper size a single time in my life.
769.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Because it's an interesting and positive review of a popular book about the industry covered by this forum. It would be really weird if an article like this didn't get upvoted here...
770.
by sanderjd 2y ago
I don't understand your "delusional, self serving, narcissistic and ineffective" / "egotistical" point. All of this would apply to people trying to change things from the outside too. Who the hell do you think
771.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Definitely an interesting thought to do this at the tokenizer level!
772.
by sanderjd 2y ago
I didn't say it's petty! I said it's not relevant. My question at the beginning of the thread was: Assuming people are using a particular pattern, where LLMs are used to parse prompts and route them to purpose-specific tools
773.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yes. A more competent hack would have been to use their superuser permissions to do that kind of thing. But instead they requested that logging be disabled, thus outing themselves as acting in bad faith.
774.
by sanderjd 2y ago
The question is whether it needs to be possible to turn off the audit logs for that role. And of course: No.
775.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Of course not. It's the exact opposite and every single person here knows this.
776.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Thing is: Everything they're doing is against the rules. Except they aren't "rules", they are laws.
777.
by sanderjd 2y ago
You're just making a totally different point here than is relevant to this thread. It's fine to have a hobby horse! I certainly have lots of them! But I'm sorry, it's just not relevant to this thread. Edit to add: To be
778.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Except past attempts didn't have the ability to pass on to modern foundation models. Look, I dunno if this idea makes sense, it's why I posed it as a question rather than a conviction. But I broadly have a sense that when a new te
779.
by sanderjd 2y ago
I don't think it's "on top"? I think it's an expert system where (at least) one of the experts is an LLM, but it doesn't have to be LLMs from bottom to top.
780.
by sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah this sounds right to me.

More ›