tivert

86 ms·

781.
by tivert 2y ago
Yeah. I can think of one ritual that's probably even older: burying the dead. However what interesting about this tradition is the degree of specificity that was preserved with this ritual (e.g. stick of same type of wood, coated with
782.
by tivert 2y ago
The game tag, as in "Tag! You're it!"
783.
by tivert 2y ago
> In classic HN style the original reply lacks empathy, and demonstrates a preference of machines over humans. Life goes on... That stereotype definitely rings true. Thank you for helping me put my finger on it!
784.
by tivert 2y ago
> I’m actually thrilled by this, as it means all the hack marketers that spam my inbox incessantly with whatever product they’re hucking - this time for sure perfect for my business, in spite of the fact I’ve ignored their last ten email
785.
by tivert 2y ago
> I really dislike this "autonomous sci-fi slaughterbot" framing of the article. That's not what's happening here. It's literally exactly what's happening here: > Saker has gone further in recent weeks,
786.
by tivert 2y ago
> Where do you draw the line? How much novelty must there be? ... > Tough questions when a machine can create novels in seconds that are as good as human written novels over many years. Value of knowledge is about to plummet. You draw
787.
by tivert 2y ago
>> The big players in this space all happen believe things about other people's intellectual property that are orthogonal to human flourishing. It appears to be endemic in their spaces. They believe things that are contrary to hu
788.
by tivert 2y ago
1/3 sounds big, the the event happened in 1962, so the actual number was probably something like 2 or 3 total.
789.
by tivert 2y ago
> This sounds like just another way of saying "I don't like your conclusions, but I can't see a good way to refute them." No, I don't think so. It sounded more like "your conclusions are not new and wrong, b
790.
by tivert 2y ago
Why is the OP thought to be ChatGPT? Because it spent so much time summarizing? I'm having a hard time fitting the last paragraph (an the accounts other comments) into my stereotypes of LLM output. Maybe it's human with too much L
791.
by tivert 2y ago
> How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no official basis for an act? Especially when the response is almost certainly going to be, "the reason for the official action is classified". In my hypothetical? Be
792.
by tivert 2y ago
> How can it be an illegal order when this decision makes all of the Presidents "official actions" legal? Because "official actions" doesn't mean "every action" or "every action attempting to use p
793.
by tivert 2y ago
> 'Official act' does not currently have a legal definition. It isn't defined in this majority opinion and it hasn't been given a definition previously. It sounds like it does, from the majority opinion: > The Pres
794.
by tivert 2y ago
>> When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. > I would conside
795.
by tivert 2y ago
> I believe it is almost certain that we will make something like this and that they will out-compete us. The bigger problem here is that too few people believe this to be a possibility. And when this becomes certainty becomes apparent t
796.
by tivert 2y ago
> I've had this point of view for years; I would love to refine, abandon, or update my perspective as necessary. Please tear into it! I think he's telling you to do that work yourself, because he doesn't want to do it and
797.
by tivert 2y ago
> They don't have to play by the rules either. They can also be sued by the NYTimes. I understand a lot of other outlets have been folding and making deals with OpenAI, because they're too weak to sue and desperate for the reve
798.
by tivert 2y ago
>> Are you claiming she's actually promoting jihadism by opposing it? > no, i'm claiming she's promoting herself by promoting jihadism You're being really unclear, and the straightforward meaning of what you wro
799.
by tivert 2y ago
>> Marine Le Pen was charged in France for promoting jihadism when she shared a picture of a beheading or some other gorry crime to denounce daesh. > Marine Le Pen very much needs jihadism for people to vote for her Are you claimin
800.
by tivert 2y ago
Good article. It looks like you missed a "b" at the end of your link: https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-04-23... .
801.
by tivert 2y ago
Except it wouldn't apply to this thread or the reaction to this event. If you're being a jerk, and I'm commenting on your behavior, I'm not making any kind of error if I don't mention how Steve was being a jer
802.
by tivert 2y ago
> So the cost savings in writing will be offset by additional costs of reading. Also the more enjoyable tasks will be replaced with more drudgery. "I wish I could automate writing code so I could spend more time doing code reviews,&
803.
by tivert 2y ago
> And most worrying of all, writing can be an integral part of the research process, by helping researchers clarify and formulate their own ideas. An excessive reliance on llms could therefore make science poorer. This. The mistake so ma
804.
by tivert 2y ago
>> Instead we’re stuck with broken replacements like CSV. > ASCII separators are equally as broken. How do you represent a string containing the record separator in a record-separated file? ASCII separators may not be perfect, but
805.
by tivert 2y ago
> Don't act like complaints about the courts are just liberal tantrums. They're not usually so much tantrums as biased, hypocritical argumentation developed backwards to arrive at the politically desired result.
806.
by tivert 2y ago
And it may be so, but the law/constitution doesn't automatically morph to adapt to whatever some particular person thinks is more efficient. If this is really needed, maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment adapt the
807.
by tivert 2y ago
>> It drives me nuts how OpenAI has misleadingly marketed their products, and the tech community at large has failed to clarify what their products really are. > The tech industry has long, long, long been a rapacious pump and dump
808.
by tivert 2y ago
> What I'm hearing is that qualitative is clearly more important than quantitative. I'm hearing a lot of "my-side likes this, therefore changing it is wrong." Liberals think it's the highest expression of the bea
809.
by tivert 2y ago
> If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling. But the only way to properly do that is
810.
by tivert 2y ago
> The US is a common-law country. By stare decisis, the courts are indeed supposed to be bound by precedent. And that doesn't work, and it didn't even work to start . IIRC, in Britain, before the US was independent, "comm

More ›