mike741

all of those predictions seem to have come true

i love this idea but i wish there was a simple way to play the sounds of whatever is currently selected. perhaps a play button near the top of the page or a spacebar hotkey

You're absolutely right! There was a crime. I appreciate the course correction—it’s a significant oversight on my part. I've updated our previous plan to better reflect that a crime occurred. You're under arrest.

You need a minimum threshold of karma in order to downvote others on HN. Additionally, accounts with more well received activity are harder to identify as shills. That's why there are black markets where social media accounts are bought and sold and the price is typically proportional to the account's karma.

which can then translate to real-world money points

TLDR: "Just do it." ~ Nike

You didn't state any complex tasks though. You only stated programmers who use LLMs.

Urgent updates can be necessary every once in a while but should be recognized as technical failures on the part of the developers. Failure can be forgiven, but only so many times. The comments saying "what about X update that had this feature I need?" are missing the point entirely. Instead ask yourself about all of the updates you've made without even looking at the patch notes, because there are just too many updates and not enough time. Instead of blaming the producers for creating a blackbox relationship with the consumers, we blame the consumer and blindly tell them to "just update." That's what needs to change. It's a bit similar to opaque ToS issues.

The study references "clinicians" rather than "doctors." Clinicians include psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians, paramedics, etc.

66% accuracy is not "great" and definitely not the best there's ever been.

for perspective, here's what 500k gallons (~0.04% of the eruption) of water vapor looks like: https://youtu.be/BIpeNs5OWbo?t=103

oh wow. that seems like the sort of critical feature reddit should have built in.

thanks. is the nomination and voting a built in reddit feature? if so, this sounds like a good time to use it.

Aren't you on an alternative right now?

how were those moderators chosen the first time around? what's to prevent them from repeating that selection process? it might take a bit of work but the circumstances seem to merit at least that much.

but its people aren't allowed in? doesn't this prove reddit is not its people but rather a small group of moderators?

can someone explain why Reddit staff doesn't just forcibly reopen these subs and perma-ban their moderators?

No one wants to look in the mirror and admit that

Then that includes the employees and executives at Amazon and is all the more reason to not allow them to punish others for behavior that is (according to you) universal.

in an ML testing context

OP was not speaking in the ML testing context, hence the misunderstanding.

Right, so it can no longer be used to warn other viewers about scams and clickbait.

The test is novel to the program, just not its programmer. So are we testing the program or are we actually testing its programmer? If we're testing the program, then the programmer's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Many =/= Most. The dislike ratio was extremely reliable when it came to identifying clickbait. Maybe you don't care about that but many others do.

If it is incorporated, its definitely not effective. Clickbait dominates Youtube's recommendations and search despite consistently low thumb ratings. An easy example would be a procedurally generated channel such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/@futureunity5129/videos

Sort by "Popular" and you'll see that their most watched videos have consistently low like/dislike ratios yet are still being actively recommended. If you use Youtube's search feature, these same channels and videos will come up long before the actually informative channels do.

You could argue it's been helping Youtube by wasting viewer's time and making them watch extra ads but its certainly not helping the viewers find what they're looking for. Even mass reporting the channels doesn't seem to stop them.

if its "not that much" and creates deception then why make site-wide changes that make it even less transparent? If a video had 4k dislikes and 46k likes then you knew that 4k accounts disliked it. There's little room for speculation there. Now you have to go to the comment section to get an idea of public opinion, where the theorized vocal minority have far more potential influence (because they can leave multiple comments, but only one thumbs down)

There would be no need for review bomb if they were widely disliked.

This is circular reasoning. You're calling something a "review bomb" because you're assuming from the outset that its not widely disliked, despite the large amount of negative reviews suggesting it is in fact widely disliked.

The value of the dislike button was in warning other viewers about scams and clickbait. If you watch a bad video, realize its clickbait, and then simply move on that would be rewarding the clickbaiter and making the problem worse.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-dis...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/return-youtub...

4,000,000+ users on chrome with 14k reviews. Maybe you are mistaking the review count for the user count?

Even if it were just 0.0003% that's still the same sampling rate as the average Gallup poll using 1000 people to represent the USA's 300,000,000+ population.

LLMs can pass novel theory of mind tests, which is what we're talking about.

Passing a ToM test is not what OP meant by having an "underlying theory of mind." OP's talking about the machine having an underlying mind (ie sentience, sapience, consciousness, etc), ToM tests are only testing output.

You said "Those tasks could be completed a [sic] traditional static program.", and no, they can't. You're incorrect.

They can, a static program as I described would indeed answer that one question correctly, resulting in a positive ToM score, without seeing any training data whatsoever. Did the programmer see it? Maybe, but the machine didn't and it would pass the test regardless.

yep. no hard feelings.

finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.