teiferer

48 ms·

451.
by teiferer 6mo ago
"Cowboy thing" is putting it mildly. It invites/incentivises terrible behavioral patterns. The next guy looking has no idea what happened to that running system. (That next guy may well be you yourself a week or month later.)
452.
by teiferer 6mo ago
> [...] who thought it was okay to yell at people about [...] That society as a whole accepts this kind of abuse, no matter industry or circumstances, is beyond me. It's an abuse of power. If anybody did this to anyone, the only app
453.
by teiferer 6mo ago
To me that's the opposite. Whatever an LLM gives me, I view with skepticism. If I google sth then I quickly get a sense of how much I can trust it and what the BS factor is. I can refine my view in either case, but my a priori trust wi
454.
by teiferer 6mo ago
The argument I and others here are making is that what you call "intelligent" is a property that also other tools exhibit which are rarely called "intelligent". You can certainly do that, but that does not prove us wrong
455.
by teiferer 6mo ago
> sometimes we ascribe a mythical aura to the concept of “intelligence” because we don’t fully understand it Agreed! But as a consequence just ascribing a concrete definition ad-hoc which happens to fit LLMs as well doesn't sound li
456.
by teiferer 6mo ago
You had a human to prompt the LLM to do the RCA, didn't you?
457.
by teiferer 6mo ago
I use a compiler daily. It consumes C++ source files and emits machine code within seconds. Doing that myself would take months. I just did my taxes using a sophisticated spreadsheet. Once the input is filled in, it takes the blink of an ey
458.
by teiferer 6mo ago
> emergence of a new kind of intelligence Curious about your definition of these terms. Just because you are impressed by the capabilities of some tech (and rightfully so), doesn't mean it's intelligent. First time I realized w
459.
by teiferer 6mo ago
My gut flora won't do that, so they do have an edge. (Not during a marathon, but that wasn't my point anyway.)
460.
by teiferer 6mo ago
It's even conceivable that 2 gets worse with AI: The AI does the proof for them, very convolutedly so, and as long as the proof checker eats it, it goes through. Comes the day when the complexity goes beyond what the AI assistant can h
461.
by teiferer 6mo ago
It "exhaustive brute forcing" approach does not need an LLM in the loop. Just brute force the possible outputs instead. They will contain all the most beautiful novels you can imagine!
462.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Then why replace one imprecise term with another? Fiber is a carbohydrate. Humans use close to nothing from its energy. (Though it plays another important role in the digesive system.) Try eating 100g of grass per hour during a marathon and
463.
by teiferer 6mo ago
In hindsight, it's easy to be smart. You picked two examples where somebody said "never gonna happen" and then it happened. How about the countless examples where somebody said the same and then the thing actually didn't
464.
by teiferer 6mo ago
If you find discussion forums pointless then why are you participating in one?
465.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Every model is able to solve each problem, given the right prompt. (Worst case, the prompt contains the solution.)
466.
by teiferer 6mo ago
And the five questions are...? Did I miss sth or is this task underspecified?
467.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Thanks for joining the discussion! > if I don't care about 8/10 vs 9/10 shots from 25 yards, there is no way I am putting a shot within a 4" circle from 100 metres. Totally with you there. Though isn't what count
468.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Point is that sub-millimeter precision when measuring rings is doing absolutely nothing to further his shooting skills to take down a tasty deer. To the contrary. Time is limited, and every minute spent perfecting this automation was not sp
469.
by teiferer 6mo ago
It's surely disingenuous to only criticize one actor and always stay silent or even defend another. But it's disengenuous as well if criticism on one actor is never accepted with the argument "but you didn't criticize Xy
470.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Isn't there a difference between the models output reflecting the mean of public discourse and the active adjustment of information by the government? Irrespective of how close the outcomes are to the actual facts, those two things hav
471.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Does all this insane behavior from the US justify the Chinese censorship?
472.
by teiferer 6mo ago
The article literally starts with "I wanted to cook venison from scratch, which meant learning to shoot"
473.
by teiferer 6mo ago
But why would he care about this millimeter precision? His objective is not to participate in the Olympics but to shoot deer. He wants to improve general shooting abilities, not sub-millimeter accuracy. If he now and then counts a ring wron
474.
by teiferer 6mo ago
It's easy for malicious code to detect sandboxing. Also, check out the VW Diesel scandal.
475.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Of all the things one can automate in this whole journey - he chose the ring counting on the shooting range? I don't get it. I totally see the programming challenge there, but it's in no substantial way making the journey any easi
476.
by teiferer 6mo ago
I agree with your overall sentiment. But allow me some objections: > There is this broken idea, particularly apparent in North America, but in western society that more is better for many things. It's not. But it is. The faster I go
477.
by teiferer 6mo ago
How does loading up on social media help? Maybe turn off any gas stove, secure any dangerous tools, stop your car, that kind of thing.
478.
by teiferer 6mo ago
Quite clear that people here work in low risk jobs. Anybody working with heavy machinery, drills, saws, knives, etc will immediately know how to use those 45 seconsa well. Those trades that don't typically let you read HN all day.
479.
by teiferer 6mo ago
In the age of agentic programming and the ever increasing pressure to ship faster, I'm afraid this kind of knowledge will become more and more fringe, even moreso than it is today. Who has the time to think through the intricacies of p
480.
by teiferer 6mo ago
The last point in your intro description can't be stressed enough: this allows for safe handling of rounding errors in floating point operations. Though you are inherently losing precision: there are values in the output interval which

More ›