timr

20 ms·

331.
by timr 7mo ago
You found a paper saying that contamination is possible. That doesn’t mean that most of these plastic studies are doing the necessary controls, let alone the (almost impossible) task of preventing the contamination in a laboratory setting w
332.
4Chan attorney replies to UK Ofcom fine with picture of giant hamster(twitter.com)
29 points by timr 7mo ago|2 comments
333.
by timr 7mo ago
> This is a thread where we are discussing Jeff Bezos mandating the opinions in the opinions section of the Washington Post. No, "we" are not doing that. You are asserting this, and I am saying that you are confusing the comp
334.
by timr 7mo ago
> If mandating an entire section of a national newspaper only write things that align with specific, prescribed values doesn’t rise to the definition of creating propaganda, nothing does. Well, OK. If you want to call the New York Times
335.
by timr 7mo ago
> Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). > While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea We're talkin
336.
by timr 7mo ago
> I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. To people who disagree with you , your opinion is always trivially dismissed as "propaganda". This is neither insightful nor charitable,
337.
by timr 7mo ago
Yes.
338.
by timr 7mo ago
> Which leaves as observation, you can only do truly creative work - in a high trust society, where people trust you with the resources and leave you alone, after a initial proof of ability. I don’t know about “high trust”, but I can say
339.
by timr 7mo ago
> But it works well enough for most use cases. So does the code produced by any bad engineer. So either we’re finally admitting that all of that leetcode screening and engineer quality gating was a farce, or it wasn’t, and you’re wrong.
340.
by timr 7mo ago
> A lot of what one previously needed a SWE to do can now be brute forced well enough with AI. (Granted, everything SWEs complained about being tedious.) Only if you ignore everything they generate. Look at all the comments saying that t
341.
by timr 7mo ago
It's not comparing him to anyone. He has an endowed professorship. This is standard in academia, and you give the name because a) it's prestigious for the recipient and b) it strokes the ego of the donor.
342.
A 1960s top-secret project tasked three students with designing an atomic bomb(nautil.us)
1 points by timr 8mo ago|0 comments
343.
by timr 8mo ago
> If you were trying to determine if the quantity of daylight increased over a week in spring, would you account for the differences caused by day and night? What about cloud cover? Or is that just massaging the data? Just to draw a bett
344.
by timr 8mo ago
1) Their model is inherently dumb. The system is much more complicated and inseparable. 2) They openly admit that “subtracting E, S and V”, as you say, cannot actually be done. 3) They’re arbitrarily removing sources of variation so that th
345.
by timr 8mo ago
I mean...they're just cherry-picking the sources of "noise" that prevent their preferred window from showing "significance". It's not like they did a thorough analysis of every uncontrolled factor and carefully
346.
by timr 8mo ago
They used a published methodology. That doesn't mean the methodology is uncontroversial, and it certainly doesn't mean that they used it in a way that makes sense in the current context. One can commit an almost infinite numbe
347.
by timr 8mo ago
> Your summary of the article is wrong. The authors model temperature using time series over solar irradiance, volcanic activity, and southern oscillation. They calibrate that model using time series over global surface temperatures. Thi
348.
by timr 8mo ago
> And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all. I don't know if I'd go that far. The measurements are as objective as they can be given the limits of technology a
349.
by timr 8mo ago
Setting aside the names of the authors, this is a very bad paper. They take temperature data sets, "adjust" [1] them by attempting to remove the biggest recent factors (volcanism, solar and el nino cycles) affecting temperatures
350.
NY bill would prohibit AI chatbots from giving legal advice(twitter.com)
5 points by timr 8mo ago|0 comments
351.
by timr 8mo ago
> but this isn’t how the law works, at all. Not sure what you think “the law” is, but no, this kind of thing happens all the time . Both political teams do it, regularly. Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton…all have routinely found an existing
352.
by timr 8mo ago
> So this is okay because the arbitrary rule they applied to retaliate says so? No. It honestly doesn’t take much of a charitable leap to see the argument here: AI is uniquely able (for software) to reject, undermine, or otherwise cont
353.
by timr 8mo ago
> What it does is prevent companies that Anthropic needs to do business with from doing business with Anthropic. If Anthropic “needs” the government to not have this rule, then perhaps they had a losing hand, and they overplayed it. I do
354.
by timr 8mo ago
The rule in question is exactly meant for “this”, where “this” equals ”a complete ban on use of the product in any part of the government supply chain” . That’s why it has the name that it has. The rule itself has not been misconstrued.
355.
by timr 8mo ago
You’re just restating the implication of the rule, but the rule is as I stated. That’s the point of having such a rule.
356.
by timr 8mo ago
To quote one of the greatest movies of all time: That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
357.
by timr 8mo ago
> That is misinformation. It would be essentially a death sentence for a company like Anthropic, which is targeting enterprise business development. "Misinformation" does not mean "facts I don't like". > No on
358.
by timr 8mo ago
> Surely there’s a big difference between Anthropic selling the government direct access to its models, and an unrelated contractor that sells pencils to the government and happens to use Anthropic’s services to help write the code for t
359.
by timr 8mo ago
> It prohibits DoD agencies and contractors from using Anthropic services. It'd be one thing if the DoD simply didn't use Anthropic. This is literally the mechanism by which the DoD does what you're suggesting. Generally s
360.
by timr 8mo ago
I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government

More ›