throw10920

4 ms·

1.
by throw10920 5d ago
> Or, they care but they lack the vocabulary to express what they care about. That's speculative to the point of being conspiratorial. > Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw expone
2.
by throw10920 6d ago
> So your argument is abusive practices are required for the creation of influential companies, serious technology, and high paying salaries? They never said anything remotely like that in their comment. Please engage in good faith, don&
3.
by throw10920 6d ago
The vast majority of people do not care about memory efficiency on the levels we're talking about. I've never met a non-technical person who has cared. And out of the technical people that I know (which represent less than 5% of
4.
by throw10920 9d ago
> Dear fellow humans from "Hacker News". Please don't lump HN users together to attack them. This is "sneering at the community", which is explicitly forbidden in the guidelines: > Please don't sneer, i
5.
by throw10920 9d ago
And thank you for sending that link, because it was extremely useful and detail-packed.
6.
by throw10920 10d ago
I literally had never heard of this before. I don't check HN every single day. It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely a
7.
by throw10920 12d ago
> But the Chinese are doing just that? Completely and totally irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the fact that you are not obligated to others' work. > Legal != moral Sure, you're right. I guess the bigger issue is that th
8.
by throw10920 12d ago
> Problem with Anthropic is that they benefited massively from open source and now are completely against it Uh, no. They're against open weights . They benefited from open source . Not the same thing. And the terms of those open-
9.
by throw10920 12d ago
> - no open weights That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Nobody is entitled to give you something that they spent (tens of?) billions of dollars to develop for free. > - can’t use claude to research AI No problems there either.
10.
by throw10920 14d ago
What company do you work for that makes its tech decisions based purely on ideology without regard to engineering merits?
11.
by throw10920 14d ago
This is one of the most anti-intellectual and unsuitable for HN comments I've ever seen. You're proudly proclaiming your lack of desire to learn or discuss on a forum meant for those things. Go to Reddit. That's the right pla
12.
by throw10920 15d ago
I have basic understanding about how refusal-removal works - find the "no" weights by intentionally generating diverse refusals, and then set those weights to zero. Is there a similar process for removing not refusals, but misinfo
13.
by throw10920 16d ago
> Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Lots of people. Even on HN, which is wildly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, comments that "this site was AI-generated" are commonly upvoted to the top because people do care.
14.
by throw10920 16d ago
Evidence?
15.
by throw10920 17d ago
Wrong in the sense that it has less of an impact than they are claiming (e.g. "AI is in an overvalued hype bubble") or less (AI is going to be even more transformative than the hypers say)? In the former case, isn't it ju
16.
by throw10920 17d ago
> Your comment technically does as well. Which guideline did I violate? > Leave the policing up to dang and the other mods. The mods have been very clear that they expect the community to do some self-policing and not rely exclusive
17.
by throw10920 17d ago
Your comment quite badly violates the HN guidelines. You should review them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > "Let's face it" "terrible writer" "other nonsense" "
18.
by throw10920 21d ago
What evidence do you have that they tweaked the index to fit what they thought people expected?
19.
by throw10920 22d ago
> SpaceX datacentre issues? This should be at the top. This is the first remotely plausible theory that has any sort of evidence behind it.
20.
by throw10920 22d ago
Is this speculation or is there a reason you believe this?
21.
by throw10920 23d ago
Yeah, but Google is incentivized to claim that regardless of truth value. Critical analysis is necessary.
22.
by throw10920 23d ago
We've gotten an unusually fast speed of Gemini Flash releases over the past few months. Is this Recursive Self Improvement, or Google just trying to distract from the fact that it's been a while since the last Gemini Pro release
23.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> If everyone is doing the job of hundreds, extremely productive and everything is so easily fixed, why everything feels so slow and broken, even so basic things? This doesn't make sense. There were slow and broken things before AI.
24.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> Uh, actively trying to hack an embedded device that runs Linux over the network, specifically an IP security camera, could be considered red teaming, no? No. Vendors (and their model guardrails) do, indeed, treat those as separate from
25.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> Maybe the system prompt you're injecting is making it refuse? No, this has nothing to do with my harness. I use one of the most popular open-source harnesses available. > I found that GLM-5.2 was pretty happy helping me reverse
26.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> I want to use these models to red team my own computers. Exactly what I was trying to use it for! ): I'm in the same boat - I haven't heard of a way to get around it aside from either self-hosting (GLM-5.2? good luck ) or &q
27.
by throw10920 1mo ago
And there's a reason for that: the US government does not compel model trainers to train their models to paint them in a favorable light, while the PRC does.
28.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> In fact, I don't think I've ever even had a prompt refused. I very much have. I've gotten GLM-5.2 refusals for extremely benign security testing on my own infrastructure of the same flavor that people were getting (wrong
29.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> Primary production of the planet, i.e. total carbon fixation, is broadly not influenced in this manner. Plants account for roughly half of global carbon fixation. "Broadly not influenced" is straight-up false. Your follow-o
30.
by throw10920 1mo ago
> No, it inherently incorporates all natural processes that capture carbon. It literally cannot, because it's not parameterized on the amount of additional plants being planted. > Artificial, sure, if you want to point at them I

More ›