teiferer

46 ms·

841.
by teiferer 1y ago
Well that's what he's arguing, against another post which somehow claims that that's ok.
842.
by teiferer 1y ago
Sure. But there is no objective arbitter of truth. In a similar vein, if I'm standing at a train station discussing some topic with a friend on which we have different opinions w.r.t facts, I would not feel comfortable if a stranger w
843.
by teiferer 1y ago
There is a huge selection bias there. People who are very disagreeable and hard to talk to tend to not participate in such a thing. Of course the average participant was open to talk to somebody and connect.
844.
by teiferer 1y ago
> if someone believes something incorrect - or worse - then they need to be corrected. Why is that? I may feel that somebody is wrong, and that may be correct, but it could also be incorrect. A priori, they are not less correct than you
845.
by teiferer 1y ago
> knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh) And why would you not tell anyone about the serial killer?
846.
by teiferer 1y ago
> Two, regarding aging populations, against that we'll have AI and robots doing stuff before most people retire. We also have immigration against that. Lots of people in their late 10s or early 20s ready to start contributing to the
847.
by teiferer 1y ago
> If you can train yourself to read your own code with fresh eyes almost as soon as you write it, you’d be unlocking a powerful shortcut, a cheat code to life. This is really a key takeaway here: Always keep your audience in mind. When p
848.
by teiferer 1y ago
All seems like "fix tests" is the better advice. Flaky test? Fix it! Make it rock solid! Slow test? Fix it! Make it fast! That can be hard (if it was easy, people would have already done it), but it's vastly more useful than
849.
by teiferer 1y ago
Could anybody explain how this isn't easily circumvented by using a competitor's model? Also, if everything in the future has some touch of AI inside, for example cameras using AI to slightly improve the perceived picture qualit
850.
by teiferer 1y ago
The user-facing software is not included in the kernel, but you need that to configure wireguard.
851.
by teiferer 1y ago
What leads you to believing that that's a reason, even "the only" reason? If the top search hit is your only indication then you might want to brush up on your understanding of how LLMs work.
852.
by teiferer 1y ago
"Research" is one thing. An anthropomorphized chat encouraging you to go through with it is another altogether.
853.
by teiferer 1y ago
I was talking about a standard to connect to a (vendor-agnostic) bookmark sync server.
854.
by teiferer 1y ago
Is there a reliable standard to do this across browser vendors and versions and not have to rely on a proprietary cloud implementation on somebody's server?
855.
by teiferer 1y ago
Use archive.org for permalinks?
856.
by teiferer 1y ago
> On a broader note I believe governments regulating what goes in an AI model is a path to hell paved with good intentions. That's not an obvious conclusion. One could make the same argument with physical weapons. "Regulating w
857.
by teiferer 1y ago
> state and federal regulators would be on the warpath against OpenAI As long as lobbies and donators can work against that, this will be hard. Suck up to Trump and you will be safe.
858.
by teiferer 1y ago
> allowing people to understand their options. Which is what a suicidal person has a hard time doing. That's why they need help. We need to start viewing mental problems as what they are. You wouldn't tell somebody who broke th
859.
by teiferer 1y ago
If you ask ChatGPT about Cr2Gr2Te6 then it will correct you. The author's worry might be unfounded. Though since he didn't date his article, it's unclear how long it has been out there so unclear as well whether it made its w
860.
by teiferer 1y ago
Easier, yes. But it's cheating. I'm often saddened by all the normalization of all the things people do to cheat their way through life. Why does everything need to be physically prevented just so people don't find a loophole
861.
by teiferer 1y ago
I'd have loved for the article to explore such reasons.
862.
by teiferer 1y ago
> Forget climate change, And that's why we are in trouble. > the best reason is national security. Sure, if that's what convinces people to do the right thing, so be it. Though the continuation of that thinking tends to caus
863.
by teiferer 1y ago
They mention end-to-end efficiency of 40-45%...
864.
by teiferer 1y ago
And environmentally, that tends to be pretty bad for a long time. Looks more peaceful than a fracking site, but it's still pretty bad. There is no magic solution. I'm happy to see all those efforts, but am missing a mention of sav
865.
by teiferer 1y ago
I wondered when anybody would bring nuclear fission into this discussion.
866.
by teiferer 1y ago
You are not hiking much in the mountains, are you? 1000m of elevation gain per day are no problem for a slightly out of shape sit-all-day programmer. Not sure how high up you want me to go, but given a high enough mountain (and a thick jack
867.
by teiferer 1y ago
> Why do that kind of project when you can just harvest actual fuel like oil or gas? How can that still be a question in this day and age? Unless somebody doesn't "believe" in climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissi
868.
by teiferer 1y ago
I agree with your assessment and didn't say it's easy. If it was then we'd already have solved it. But that doesn't mean it can't be solved. I'm sure 150 years ago people said something similar about flight. No
869.
by teiferer 1y ago
Engineering doesn't mean all processes are flawless and surely not that all humans participating are perfect. The collapsing bridges in the US are mainly caused by insufficient maintenance, which is not an engineering problem but a pol
870.
by teiferer 1y ago
The term "design" is ambiguous here. When design is a process to build something pleasing (like in music or painting), then yes, it's an art, and you can rightfully have different opinions about outcomes, sometimes diametrica

More ›