fwip

[delayed]

Very cool, thanks.

That's fair, I just figure there are useful scenarios as well. Apologies if I came off as dismissive!

What sort of setups do people have that are bounded by the speed of the tokenizer?

Ah, but the key difference is, we are racist against the Chinese.

I actually had the opposite reaction - the AI image looked grotesque, and the the real food was like "oh damn this looks like good food."

The text is low quality because it is un-proofread LLM output.

Presumably they were worried about misclassified images, or images sent by other kids.

Article is AI-written.

LLM-written text tends to have the property that it gives the impression of expertise and knowledge in excess of what the text actually contains.

In other words, it "sounds smart" without necessarily having anything to back it up. In even more critical terms, it's very good at bullshitting.

Unfortunately for us, the scientific community current relies on a certain amount of trust. (To do otherwise is very expensive! see: bitcoin). When you introduce a known-bullshitter to write your papers, every human in the loop effectively has to defend against an adversarial attack. Not just the readers at home, or the peer reviewers, but even the author needs to be wary that the facts and arguments coming out of the LLM are true and meaningful.

Personally, I've been a minor contributor to several high-profile papers. I don't know how every field does it, but in my experience, the corresponding author (generally the PI or other senior scientist), is responsible for the accuracy of the paper. They ultimately have to trust the people who did the work that the facts are true. Introducing LLMs into the mix make it more difficult for them to identify and review sections they are unsure of. (An honest person will typically write at a confidence level reflecting their certainty. LLMs do not do this in any reliable way.)

I've also found that LLMs frequently use metaphors that are unhelpful, or used out of context in a field that isn't familiar with them. This makes understanding the text more work, for no good reason. Introducing terms or definitions with low relevance reads as impressive at first glance, but avoiding the standard terminology in the field just adds confusion. (As an analogy, imagine if you were reading a CS paper that, for no particular reason, devoted a section to a new data structure called an "akimbo tree," which after much untangling, you realized was a reinvention of a randomized splay tree.)

They are, and they'll also see a random reddit comment in their web search and treat it as fact.

I agree that it's nonsense. Maybe this will be a wakeup call that the US cannot be assumed to be a responsible steward.

I don't see the disconnect you do - they are voting for white Christian men to protect white Christian men. The rape and adultery was hurting women (or gay guys).

If you want to keep the domain name you got from a TLD that they control, yes.

Or did you mean, like, morally?

I'd argue that it's this same pattern-seeking drive that undergirds science.

"Zeus sends the lightning, his wrath darkening the very sky," is an understandable model that connects "dark storm clouds" to a likely prediction of lightning.

That urge to explain the surprising, to find the pattern, leads directly to our understanding of the cosmos.

Yeah, it's a little bonkers. I've run into it a few times IRL, and I find that it tends to come from the kind of guy mocked in this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/793/ That is, somebody who is basically unfamiliar with the subtleties of the problem, thinks of an "obvious solution" for it, and then assumes that anybody who doesn't do it isn't trying to solve it.

Oh that's easy: they outsource design to the LLM, which doesn't have eyeballs.

Okay, you can scroll back up and see that the thread is about the erosion of checks and balances. After that, you can do a web search to read either about the Clinton administration's increased partisan direction of federal agencies, or Obama's increase in both scope and number of executive orders.

Presidential powers have been ratcheting up for at lest thirty years. And neither party seems particularly interested in turning the dial back once they're in power.

You don't "maintain flow." You eat lunch.

I swear, tech culture has gotten people wanting to work for the machines, rather than the other way round.

There's plenty of non-political reasons to avoid believing anything that a con-man says.

Claude is the only contributor? 100% vibed.

You only need to rely on density in your area if you have no other network - it will happily use mobile data or Wifi connections if you have them.

AST hashing & effects are both used in Unison, if you want to check that out. I don't know that they have any proof-land stuff, though.

Look, I vote blue too, but you can't ignore that the Democrats have also pushed the slider further and further toward executive power every chance they get. Well, I guess I can't tell you what to do, so I suppose you can.

It certainly is. HIPAA binds healthcare providers and those entities who get data from them. Samsung is not bound by either of these, unless it is sourcing the health information from, like, your doctor, and not from your watch.

As a guy who writes a famous Zig project, he probably gets a lot of young, eager Rust advocates trying to sell him on it. If it's his primary experience with the community, no wonder he's fed up.

Depends on who's in it.

100% this came out of an LLM-debugging session, reformatted by LLM into an article.

I was growing suspicious when I was four paragraphs in with about one sentence of content, but that phrase sealed it for me.

The empty phrases are one thing, but LLM articles like this seem almost perversely designed to take longer to read then they did to write.

Right, and there's no way you're getting that message out of a company that sells LLM security solutions.