smaudet

5 ms·

31.
by smaudet 4mo ago
Again, infinity is illustrative. Put another way, you do not deny a proof by inference because it "leads to large numbers". We don't need to speculate, we can see many, many examples today of more and less intelligent species
32.
by smaudet 4mo ago
Infinity is....subtle. They are more characterized by how they grow and when they stop than by their "physical reality". Proof of this is in that different infinities exist - characterized precisely by how fast they grow, i.e.,
33.
by smaudet 4mo ago
For all its talk of inoculation, this is a terribly written essay. They do not make a point, nor even arguments, instead, opting to ramble in hopes that you forget whatever it was you were thinking. The issue is simple. Just like us (who ar
34.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Actually, the only secure default is to deny everything...how do you know that innocent command is actually innocent?
35.
by smaudet 5mo ago
While this is an informative comment, did HN start deleting comments? These comments you mention do not seem to exist...
36.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Yeah, this (the OPs) reads like a confused teenagers post, who has just started to explore the intracacies of logic. The whole post disproves itself... Fuzzy logic is fine, I suspect they saw something like this and got confused. I would re
37.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Eh? Not sure what you mean by that...
38.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Oh, don't worry, the way it's going other countries will be fast motivated to defend themselves from said foreign policy...or perish.
39.
by smaudet 5mo ago
If anything, this is more illustration of how llms are not useful to us... They will do their own thing, don't need us. In fact, we will be in the way... We can choose to study them and their output, but they don't make us better
40.
by smaudet 5mo ago
> What is bot logic exactly? Ill thought out logic like your own. I think you are likely a bot at this point. It's not likely, because that's not something that people are likely to do. Only a bot like yourself with a poor mode
41.
by smaudet 5mo ago
This feels like bot logic, lol. Unless the contributors don't care about the repos they contribute to, this is not a likely scenario. AI doesn't care. We do.
42.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Agreed, PoW is an especially poor solution here. We really need to solve SPAM itself here, I think there may be a way to do it. I.e., the problem of spam is NtoN scaling connections. The network has never been able to solve that problem (ex
43.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Which is not chrome and still has ads...(Ironically). The issue here is the core model is broken (misaligned incentives). That's not something you are going to fix with a github "downstream". A token system could help but it&
44.
by smaudet 5mo ago
> and for some reason tons of independent developers Cowboy coders got a virtual cowgirl coder and sold it to everyone, hmm, maybe... (respected or not, solo devs don't always have the requisite skills to not be a cowboy, either due
45.
by smaudet 5mo ago
I don't think that is a (very realistic) concern. AI is slop, the problem is not that the real contributors are struggling to get PRs merged. The bigger issue being, raising the bar to students who may have otherwise had productive car
46.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Agreed... However there's not a good IsThisAnAI() test at present. So unfortunately, we will have to use anti-spammer techniques (because that is exactly what AI is, high(er) quality spam).
47.
by smaudet 5mo ago
> You kind of did that to yourself if you let the new person get away with it. In theory, sure, but in practice, to echo the others, you often don't have a choice , because of power dynamics/politics. Its easy to say "its
48.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Even as a non-80 year old (much closer to the first half than second), I don't understand what has been built or why I would care... A piece of paper has infinite battery life and perfect UX (ignoring security for a second). I don&#x27
49.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Exactly. I keep saying, AI is not useful to us. There will be no AI companies. Even this supposed profitable enterprise, the people involved are absolutely too moronic to be able to control the thing they try to invent, it will just be a ma
50.
by smaudet 5mo ago
Not everyone bought it, but they campaigned hard...and now see it was all just a dog and pony show. The hold-outs were right...
51.
by smaudet 6mo ago
You should re-evaluate your probabilities, I too have heard frequently of CVEs, but never of an LPE.
52.
by smaudet 6mo ago
> it actually was able to ingest the entirety of human knowledge Even this, though, is not useful, to us. It remains true that, a life without struggle, and acheivement, is not really worth living... So, it is nice that there is somethin
53.
by smaudet 6mo ago
> What do I have to believe, in concrete terms, before my support for digital privacy counts? I think that this is fairly simple. Digital privacy requires digital autonomy, privacy without autonomy is tantamount to a promise without any
54.
by smaudet 6mo ago
If people are interpreting this is an analogy, that is probably the issue... > I guess, to use the terms of your analogy It is not an analogy, though, it is an example of a hierarchical value. > You seem to be saying that people can&#
55.
by smaudet 6mo ago
You are gravely misunderstanding my point. You can hold some values as core to your position, your belief. Outside of your beliefs, there is a strict hierarchy of values. Colors require perception, kinematics breaks down without velocity&#x
56.
by smaudet 6mo ago
Funny, how those in a hierarchical system political system struggle so much to understand, hierarchy. It's per the usual for extremist ideologies, chock full of hypocrisy and nonsense. Note that, I have no problem with conservative or
57.
by smaudet 6mo ago
> if you disagree with me on the other stuff This part is too broad. Hierarchical values are just that. Not wholesale. We call that nonsense, e.g. I believe pigs can fly, therefore the sky is red. They are making an ontological error.
58.
by smaudet 6mo ago
Not exactly. Values have a hierarchy. You can't (effectively) agree to painting everything the color blue, if you can't agree what the color blue is. And you will run into a very similar issue when everyone starts objecting to the
59.
by smaudet 6mo ago
It's an association fallacy - Musk may be a radical extremist on the right, and a technology mogul, you may find yourself aligning with some of his world views (not all of them, remember he is an extremist relative to yourself). So whe
60.
by smaudet 6mo ago
Unfortunately there isn't also a requirement on not being a complete idotic psycho. Monoply on force is meaningless, if you shoot your head off with it, which is what is happening with the US atm... Criminally stupid is the trump all c

More ›