ursAxZA

7 ms·

31.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
For Paris, I’d honestly be more curious to see a Beast robot from *Beauty and the Beast. Full-size might be… risky, but a small, friendly mini-Beast could be fun.
32.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Honestly, I’m just glad this stopped before a major accident happened.
33.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
I’d add a fourth option: not over-trusting the methodology itself. The world isn’t a perfect-information game, and many “problems” are defined under uncertainty.
34.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
This feels like the evolutionary endpoint of what people casually call “autopilot,” not the traditional aviation sense.
35.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
I might be missing something here as a non-expert, but isn’t chain-of-thought essentially asking the model to narrate what it’s “thinking,” and then monitoring that narration? That feels closer to injecting a self-report step than observing
36.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
This seems less like a failure of structured outputs and more like expecting LLMs to behave like deterministic parsers — or am I missing something?
37.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
If vending machines are the benchmark now, the logical next step is obvious: let AI run AI.
38.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
After preserving total surveillance for decades, the UK eventually succeeded: there were no UK citizens left to monitor. — Britain, 2077
39.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
When railroads were built, canal operators were upset too.
40.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
If these differences are actually neural rather than motivational, it seems likely affirmations would work for some people and not for others.
41.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Are we really going to apply insider trading logic here? This is starting to look like mortgage-backed baseball cards. Just securitize the hobby already :)
42.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Setting aside who’s right or wrong, this looks like an example of how SNS-driven escalation produces extreme outcomes. Context collapses, interpretations harden, and responses become disproportionate.
43.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
If it’s prescribed by medical professionals, that seems reasonable. At least then effectiveness and risks can be observed in practice, rather than debated abstractly.
44.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Isn’t it just symbols in, symbols out? We have hardware that can process long symbol sequences very fast — that’s basically it.
45.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Honest question: if this hierarchy isn’t suitable for comparing humans with humans, what does it mean to apply it to machines? What, exactly, is being measured? ─── I’m not arguing it’s useless — I’m trying to understand its scope here.
46.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t. This seems to be a discussion about the latter.
47.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Yes — that’s one plausible explanation, and it still fits the same structural question. Whether the delay came from optimistic expectations about imminent progress, political or economic incentives, or simple regulatory inertia, the core is
48.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Calling out your own mistake takes toughness. You owned it — that matters.
49.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Thanks — and yes, I think we’re essentially aligned now. Once we separate the layers — orthography, pronunciation, and stylistic rendering — the friction mostly disappears. Romanization is a writing system with its own conventions; speech n
50.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
I’m not making a conspiracy claim, nor arguing that regulators are always reliable. I’m describing a structural question: Why was the terminology tolerated for years before being deemed unacceptable? Regardless of whether one trusts the F
51.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
In plain-text romanization, the standard and expected spelling is “sensei.” That’s the formal, conventional representation, especially for typing and learning. Phonetically, in natural speech, the vowel often compresses toward a long /
52.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Exactly — if the terminology were truly unacceptable, the FTC would likely have intervened much earlier. Regulators implicitly allowed the ambiguity to persist, and are now attempting to reframe or correct it retroactively. It’s possible th
53.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
“Self-driving” describes what the system does, not who bears responsibility. If Tesla had ever explicitly claimed a “self-driver” or “driverless” system, that would indeed be a serious issue — but that’s a different claim.
54.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
I once wanted to be Bob Munden — the tumbleweed / quick-draw fantasy era.
55.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Because it isn’t human. Non-human agents require their own safety standards — basically a classification rule, the same way the metric system is just a standard.
56.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Honestly, the slowest actor here was the regulator. If the name “Full Self-Driving” was unacceptable, they could have stopped it years ago. “Autopilot” is already a technical aviation term — planes don’t fly themselves while the pilot sleep
57.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
> There are curiosities like karaage which is "kara" (crust) + "age" (fried thing). Slightly off-topic, but “karaage” (kara + age) isn’t “crust + frying.” The kara comes from a country name and refers to a style of co
58.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Ironically, consuming essays about “thin desires” often becomes a thin desire itself.
59.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
The theory is sound, but the practical bridge is missing. There’s a gap that current LLM architectures simply can’t cross yet.
60.
by ursAxZA 10mo ago
Just a quick update: My submission is visible again now. Thanks for taking the time to reply — appreciate it. Hope you have a good day.

More ›