tripzilch

8 ms·

91.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
There's also a difference between an MP3 and a FLAC. Again, ask DJs how well they're getting away on that distinction.
92.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
Uhuh so it seems that you weren't, in fact, asking a "Real question", but came here for an argument.
93.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
More anecdata: When I just tried Qwen 3.6 27B (Q6_K_XL) it (ultimately, after a lot of going back and forth) claimed it was not a counterexample and claimed the Jacobian wasn't constant (which I'm guessing is incorrect). It also m
94.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
And a hand written apology note
95.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
I feel like I've played under human DMs like this :)
96.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
"For what it's worth" ? Yeah for what it's worth to you , you mean. You submitted and expected people to read an article that you say you would have been stupid to write yourself, that's quite condescending, an
97.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
Sorry if I made it seem I think the human side of AI-use is without effort, because it's not and can take a lot of time (and effort/energy). It is, however, my experience that even the people who spend a lot of time and effort gen
98.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
But if you didn't care enough to write the docs yourself, why are you submitting it for discussion? Are you seriously expecting humans to spend their time and effort and discuss your AI written docs that you literally admit you'd
99.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
I had to hunt for it that's not clear at all, and if you don't care to spend the effort of writing it, why would anyone want to spend the effort of reading it. > I stand by it That's cute, but seriously who cares if you st
100.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
people could do this, but they don't. and if they did spend that effort, it would be better. but as it is now, the vast majority of AI written text, especially "documentation" of software projects, has this style signifying c
101.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
But you wouldn't have called it "allergy" or a "status" problem when considering the audience's response to human written posts of a similar low quality level. It's always been the case that the HN audienc
102.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
This exactly. Whenever someone shows me their (or someone else's) AI-assisted-coded (vibe coded) thing, I can only ever engage with it on a very superficial level, saying "oh cool". You can't have a discussion about it,
103.
by tripzilch 3mo ago
It's going to turn into slop, exponentially fast, any moment now. No but seriously it could imply grinding to a halt, turning into a laughing stock of slop, or, imho much less likely given the current state of AI (barring huge technolo
104.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> So why diss on someone for following the license terms? you're being deliberately obtuse now. this has been explained clearly several times in this thread.
105.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> Imagine if companies were run that way oh no, won't someone think of the companies
106.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> I don't get disappeared for licking the US government's taint. ftfy also maybe look up the history of the word "hysteria", that you seem to like so much
107.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
You are out of your mind if you're lumping the US together with other western nations when it comes to human rights.
108.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
What if ... it was sloppy because it wasn't the people at Anthropic, but the AI that is writing a large percentage of their code? Like maybe some "goal" they set for their AI caused it to decide that putting stego in the requ
109.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
Well it was also problematic when the search engines started quoting the websites in such a way to disincentivize people from visiting the actual website. > At least within the US, I think there are nuances around fair use and contract l
110.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
I don't think that's right. The problem is that Anthropic is hoarding it and that's hypocritical. If copyright doesn't count for Anthropic, they should publish Claude. If they wanna hide Claude behind copyrights and&#x2F
111.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
It was also a violation of the terms of service of those books (aka copyright)
112.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
Clearly paying that fine didn't do anything to stop Anthropic from doing it again. Buying a book doesn't make it legal to publish lossy compressed copies of it. Also, the vast majority of authors whose work was copied against thei
113.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
Maybe "U.S. courts have pretty consistently decided" used to mean something, but I don't think the opinion of US courts should be the standard for anything, anymore.
114.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> The usage of the output is probably considered legal. The usage of the service for that purpose may not be, and using it at scale in a dishonest way is not This is literally what the "training AI on copyrighted works is just like
115.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> Do you think software should be regulated as a utility? I do think that AI models that were trained using the biggest intellectual property heist in human history should be a utility for all, yes.
116.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> It's so basic it's actually part of the reason we exist, and animals of various sizes exist, and generally why evolution didn't stop at single-cellular life. It's also quite natural to want it to stop at individual
117.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
Are you sure? If an AI would generate a huge Lean proof/program, wouldn't there be a way to hide such cheats in it? Like as in the underhanded C contest? Because if you give an AI a goal, and cheating at Lean would satisfy that go
118.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
But there is. Human cognition is unrivaled. You're acting as if current-day AI comes even remotely close of surpassing it, lol. In fact, please show me a useful mathematical proof unintelligible to a human, or even if you would like
119.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> "how do you know that a massive C++ program that compiles to machine code compiled to the correct machine code that will actually run and it's just not a random string of bits!?!?!" I'll remind you of the underhande
120.
by tripzilch 4mo ago
> You can't unit test for taste if you haven't written down what you mean by taste. If you can externalize it, then you can. > Follow this line of thinking, and the AI-friendly answer is easy: we just have to externalize eve

More ›