wpietri

5 ms·

31.
by wpietri 2mo ago
It's a reasonable theory for sure. From what I read, two big problems for long-running columnists are getting tire of the work and running out of things to say. I have no knowledge of Gruber, but I can certainly see why people who are
32.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Again, given the limits of LLMs (stochastic, rapidly changing, everything's a hallucination, widely known prose issues) I am skeptical that you really care that much about optimal prose. I could believe it's one of the things that
33.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Oh wow, that sounds horrible. Do you have a sense of what motivates that behavior?
34.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I grant that sane behaviors may not always be successful at toxic companies. That seems true by definition. But I don't think general career advice should be based on what is (temporarily) safe at the bottom decile. Also, if you go bac
35.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I'm not uncomfortable or upset. I'm just a long-time HN denizen pointing out some behavior I think is toxic to a healthy community. You're vigorously trying to make reasonable people look bad. I knew you wouldn't like me
36.
by wpietri 2mo ago
You're the one who decided to imagine that a reasonable discussion comment was an attack on your wife. You're also the one who started out calling things bizarre. As somebody not involved in this discussion, to me it looks like dr
37.
by wpietri 2mo ago
You don't have to come across as the baddie. There are plenty of neutral ways to start the conversation. E.g., "I notice that there's a lot more generated comments lately. How much are people finding those useful?" If yo
38.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I get what you're saying, but I think it's ridiculous for people to think of LLM services generating text as either their own domain or something that they own. To the extent that it's anybody's, it's either Anthrop
39.
by wpietri 2mo ago
It seems to me like he started out mad and looked to justify it. I'm skeptical that anybody generating LLM text is really all that concerned about optimal word choice. Or even particularly good prose. But let's pretend that person
40.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Did someone suggest intervention was always good? That revised standard isn't obviously stupid, just vacuous, in two ways. One, Facebook is nothing like neutral content infrastructure. Two, laws come from somewhere. They are rooted in
41.
by wpietri 2mo ago
If you were trying to describe a preference, you didn't do a very good job. You stated it as a universal. But taking you at your word, if there are things that don't meet your personal tastes, maybe move on to the next thing to re
42.
by wpietri 2mo ago
That any particular thing is harmful can be a worthwhile discussion, one that has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries more. The notion that nothing is harmful is idiotic, so I presume you're not claiming that. A
43.
by wpietri 2mo ago
It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
44.
by wpietri 2mo ago
It has no legal obligation. Participants in a society have a moral obligation not to harm that society. People not heeding that is how we ended up with most of our laws, so Facebook could well end up with legal obligations here if they ke
45.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Ah, so you agree that a "white nationalist with Neo-Nazi links" is accepted as a right-wing voice these days? That's how it has looked to me since Charlottesville, but it's always nice to get it confirmed by people with
46.
by wpietri 2mo ago
> Gangster rap has inspired a lot of murders and other violent crime world wide What's your evidence for this? You seem to be making the claim that without gangster rap there's a bunch of violent crime that wouldn't have h
47.
by wpietri 2mo ago
And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my che
48.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Everyone has the moral obligation to not enable or profit from harm. Do we all live up perfectly to that all the time? No. There's no meaningful moral rule where people can do that. If there were, it wouldn't be worth having as a
49.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.
50.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Right? If the press and commentariat is to be believed, these companies are run by genius titans who can do anything, anything at all. Except something good for the societies they and their shareholders live in and profit from. That would b
51.
by wpietri 2mo ago
He really doesn't. Look at the consequences to him for wasting tens of billions on his "metaverse" fantasy, for example. Let me know if you find anything. But even if he did, that doesn't require that he ignore negative
52.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Your theory is that anybody who writes anything is obligated to make sure you can find any related information with one Google search? Again, to me that looks like wanting to be spoon fed. I have no idea why you think the world owes you end
53.
by wpietri 2mo ago
If only there were some sort of way for a reader to dig deeper on a topic without a writer having to spoon-feed them the entire history of everything! It's wild to me what people here expect out of something they got for free and that
54.
by wpietri 2mo ago
> Why would blog posts not be subject to such criticism? You're asking why casual comments from amateurs made for fun on the internet shouldn't be held to the same standard as those made by funded career academic experts writin
55.
by wpietri 2mo ago
> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.
56.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I obviously can. I can call anybody and ask them for all sorts of stuff. I'm asking what, in your proposed world, would stop me.
57.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I was talking about it in the context of a conversation with someone else, one easily available to you. It is frustrating to have someone not only give an irrelevant reply but then double down on the misunderstanding.
58.
by wpietri 2mo ago
We're not talking about fraud, we're talking about telemarketing. The case you describe is correct for fraud, but doesn't need any new law making "void and nulls contracts made by phone". That being epolanski's
59.
by wpietri 2mo ago
Maybe? It's a plausible theory. But these operations are all wildly unsustainable financially at the moment, and it's not clear where they'll get future data from, having destroyed a lot of the incentives that generated their
60.
by wpietri 2mo ago
I also strongly recommend the Technology Connections series on how electromechanical pinball works: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv0jwu7G_DFVAUoqtVxFV... I would love to put them on a kiosk in the museum.

More ›