throwaway115

Months later, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller proposed a bill mandating all state residents to build their own shelters, but it didn’t pass.

Wow, the bill attempts to make the case that nuclear shelter is like other building codes and housing standards. It's a stretch.

1. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R0037000...

Congrats! What has it been like developing on the AVP?

I don't want that, but I see your point. I would rather our population have a healthy immune system where bad ideas just don't survive, than to have us live as Bubble Boy, cut off from the rest of the world forever.

Where can I read about the constitutional rights of "the social organism"?

We take away your freedom and put you in jail.

The ACLU has defended literal neo-Nazis and white supremacists right to rally and share their ideas on several occasions. Sounds like you would disagree with them, and that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas. Fortunately, you're wrong.

Don't conflate words with actions like hurting someone. There are very narrow restrictions on speech, mostly around calls or threats of imminent violence. But those are extremely rare cases, and they're not what you are broadly describing.

I would be delighted to read about opposing opinions, provided they are presented + supported by provable facts.

Opinion

  a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You're being hyperbolic. Community Notes on X are an example of these tools, and they are not ignored or distrusted from what I've seen. If your tools are poor, make better tools. But also, as a first principle, accept that some people won't believe what you want them to believe, no matter what. That doesn't mean you get to start trying to control them, because you got frustrated.

So then you need to come to terms with people rejecting what you want them to believe. Some people won't believe you no matter what. Does that mean you get to reach for another tool, like force, or censorship? No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people.

"How do we stop people from sharing (what I deem to be) fake news?" is the wrong question. The right question is "How do we give people the tools to identify fake news?" If you give people the tools and they still spread what you deem to be fake news, then you've done what you can. Tough cookies for you.

Too many people get very angry that people share things they disagree with, and then start talking about clamping down on communication. No, sorry, but your ideas lost. People are allowed to think and share things that make you angry. If your views aren't mainstream, there's a reason for that. "Fake news" is only a tiny part of the equation. If you pick up that censorship weapon, that we all implicitly agree to not use, you will not be the last to wield it.

Since we're making silly comparisons, charitable organizations also give things away for "free", making the recipients somewhat dependent on them. There's plenty to criticize OpenAI about, but why associate them with drug pushers?

There's just too many people in tech, because tech needs too many people. Once we have better tools to reduce complexity and allow teams to be much much smaller, many of these problems will vanish, because a engineering team will consist of 1-3 wizard engineers who control all aspects of the tech. We simply do not need to have teams as big as they are, for what we're ultimately doing.

I've implemented a very similar RAG hybrid solution, and it has improved LLM responses enormously. There are other things you can do too that have huge improvements, like destructuring your data and placing it into a graph structure, with queryable edge relationships. I think we're just scratching the surface.

Can you not evaluate the contents of an article on their own merit, without first biasing yourself for or against the author? Of everything the article mentions, you seem to think it being on a "conservative platform" is the most noteworthy.

What's your own political tilt, so that I can "just note" it?

Having written a 3d game engine from scratch, I had automated tests, but they were more comparable to "golden" tests, which are popular in the UI test world. Basically, my renderer needed to produce a pixel-perfect frame. If a pixel didn't match, an image diff was produced. This saved my butt numerous times when I broke subtle parts of the renderer.

Where do you recommend this? It sounds dangerous for databases that do not implement RLS, like Mysql, MariaDb, Sqlite. I think you should highlight that very clearly somewhere.

What? How does that ensure user 123 only generates LLM queries that constrain on rows where user=123?

What guarantees do you offer with query security if I turn this over to an end user? How do I keep them only accessing their own data?

There are many many many movies with conversational AIs. Why that one?

I would like to think that a normal person, having not been able to hire voice work from a specific well-known actor, and wanting to avoid any image of impropriety, would use a completely different voice instead. Sam isn't dumb, he knew the optics of this choice, but he chose it anyways, and here we all are, talking about OpenAI again.

This whole thing is starting to feel like another Sam Altman spotlight production. There's enough evidence to show no wrongdoing, but it was handled in a way to make people think there was a scandal. Maximum spotlight for relatively low risk. I wonder if people will get tired of being jerked around like this.

What's the steelman argument for this being a slippery slope? I can't think of one.

But your product is producing human-formatted content for human recruiters. It sounds like you're interested in increasing the noise until there's no signal, and then hoping someone finds a way to bring the signal back.

I mean this question with the best intentions:

Can you share why you think this is a good idea and what do you think is the long term implications of AI-ifying resumes?

It doesn't matter because they hold all of the cards. It's the nature of power: you can get away with things that you normally couldn't. If you really want OpenAI to behave, you'll support their competitors and/or open source initiatives.

Sounds like you're using the music industry's definition of "steal." Nothing was stolen, because nobody was deprived of the thing.

I know someone who fancies himself an expert, and indeed, by comparison to the average tech worker, he is an expert in LLMs and AI. He vehemently believes AGI is coming this year. At least, that's what he said last year. I suppose he will probably feel sheepish if I bring it up now that we're at month 6.

My point is that the only thing that seems to convince the pro-AGI crowd is having them make specific predictions, waiting until the deadline, then asking them why they didn't happen yet.

What if someone builds a supermassive teapot in Earth's orbit and it breaks free and comes hurtling towards us?

Ok, that seems ridiculous and infeasible and nothing that has happened so far indicates that this is a real threat.

Yes, but it would be so catastrophic to humanity, that we must take it seriously, regardless of how improbable it is!

This is the AGI debate, in my view. If we're picking different extremely improbable events to get worked up about, why stop at AI?