nyeah

Ethics as opposed to morality is about codified rules

That's not accurate. See e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-theory/ section 1.2.1 "Morality and Ethics"

Not by just feeding in a lot of old time series.

Yeah I don't understand the kvetching about someone making a movie. What's the downside? * The movie might suck. * Millions of people might watch a movie I don't like * Family or friends might force me to watch it.

Two words: why should I care?

Exception: If you personally are Homer, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

The Odyssey? Or the review?

Sure. If it really is hate, then that's the right word.

Sure, of course. I'm trying to draw a distinction between disagreement and hate. I'm not trying to eliminate either one.

Can I ask for more info? Is it the perfect word for how some people feel about the tech industry? The perfect word to describe disagreement?

Ok fair.

Yeah. "Hate": https://www.kapwing.com/blog/why-does-the-public-hate-the-te...

Re the linked piece, I'm concerned about people saying "they hate us" when they really mean "they disagree with us" or "they seem skeptical of what we say." It can easily become click bait.

The language changes, sure ... but equating disagreement with the emotion of hatred? Maybe that language change is a bad idea? Just spitballing here.

Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant

The article explains why that was not irrelevant.

The article explains very clearly what these issues have to do with each other in this particular case.

TFA gives an example where kids are at risk and an old person is misusing a phone. It is clearly not advocating for this scenario to occur more often. Can you show anything else to indicate that the conclusion is "toughen them up"?

I disagree, but thanks for making a coherent argument. It's a ray of sunshine.

In TFA, the author says "agency" not "full agency." I also can't find all these other issues (jobs, etc) in TFA. Where are you getting this?

I agree that there are several different issues at work. Can you show an example of how TFA conflates some of them?

You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that doesn't make the article nonsense.

In what sense does Genghis Khan get away with it? He was a monster.

Some folks might consider 500 years "permanent."

Please don't do this.

I see. Ok.

Atari's whole attitude in the early 1980s was "you will buy games that suck."

I guess we should declare victory. You've acknowledged how LLMs actually work.

In fact LLMs are trained to predict the next token in the training set. Of course sometimes a new text input doesn't match the training set, or it matches two or more places in the training set. LLMs use a neural network to interpolate, so that's fine. Please look this up if you have any doubts.

Ok. Now. I think you're adding something to the description above. Maybe what you're describing is something "emergent," or maybe it's basically just word vectors that were built in on purpose. You may be adding something correct, or something incorrect. Fine.

But it's not reasonable to say that the "reductive" description above is a "lie". It's not. It's more like a recipe. If you look at correct instructions for making steak, and you call the author a "liar" then you are missing something important.

Balancing parentheses requires semantic understanding?

Look, some folks are more impassioned about this stuff than I am. Maybe that's a good thing. But LLMs do in fact just try to predict the next token, using a very big training set. They're very impressive (at tasks the training set prepares them for). But that's how they work.

Sometimes. But bribery is also a crime, so using that word invites comment.

No, they were correct. In fact an LLM stitches together stuff it observed in its training data. That scales up way better than a lot of us expected, but it's still correct.

If you train it on lots of working code, then it's useful for coding. If you trained it primarily on non-working code it would produce nonsense.

Wallhack is locked into the DNA of CS for some reason. The most common defense by far is mass denial. For the great majority of players that seems to be good enough.

What's really thin is the oxide layer on the surface

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodizing

When exposed to air at room temperature, or any other gas containing oxygen, pure aluminium self-passivates by forming a surface layer of amorphous aluminium oxide 2 to 3 nm thick,[4] which provides very effective protection against corrosion. Aluminium alloys typically form a thicker oxide layer, 5–15 nm thick, but tend to be more susceptible to corrosion.

Lines of code are a business liability. They are future cost.

In my opinion, you shouldn't have posted a false claim.

You claimed:

crypto in general is a big improvment on banks

I responded to your claim. If you feel you can defend your claim, go ahead. If your only response is to change the subject, ok. That's your call.