Dilettante_

They're just letting anyone make a Wikipedia page these days huh

"Discord becomes strife cause that means kinda the same thing, strife becomes strafe cause that's a gamer term"

is the completely german-less train-of-thought I could imagine leading to this name

We can't even make humans care about humans, how would we make the Shoggoth think we're worthwhile?

Also I can see a human zoo on the horizon through your direction.

>"What's 1+1, and don't say 2"?

>So because TUIs look universally bad

You can't stay engaged if the menus don't bleep and bloop at you and confetti rains down on every click? That's a personal problem. A minimal UI is not automatically a bad-looking UI.

I just went and tried. Free signups unlock the article just fine. Gonna pat myself on the back for doing the incredibly minor legwork now :3

Unrelated to the article itself: The login-wall on some random website I've never even seen before feels mildly disrespectful of my time. Kind of similar in vibe to making you download an app to order in a restaurant.

"One man's modus ponens..."

Nice Unthinkable Topic you have there.

>"Everybody experiences the world in a different way, and yet everybody assumes that everyone else experiences the world the same way they do."

Relevant article: "Generalizing from one example"[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizi...]

Personal note: That principle has been the bane of my autistic existence. People sometimes seem literally incapable of understanding that other people even can be different.

It is a bit strange, like being surprised some countries drive on the left side. xkcd 1053 of course, but people are still allowed to be surprised when someone went their entire life without picking up a fairly common factoid.

What's wrong with tiny people? ;)

>not comparable to all this

In the literal sense that a gun is not a chatbot? True.

In the sense that both your post and my analogy use the argument "this is assistive technology" to defend something which only in a very narrow slice of their thing-ness actually is assistive and in the whole rest of usages are much more, and not only Good, which both you and my "futurama caricature" were willfully ignoring? I think it's quite illustrative.

I'm not saying you're wrong, much like a gun really would help a victim of CPTSD feel safe.

What I was trying to point to was that "this thing helps some people" does not equal "this thing is unequivocally Good and should be entirely unchecked".

I don't even care about the AI. I just get peeved by bad lines of argumentation.

The former. I'm not sure what you mean by metadata, but my expectation was that anything that Claude could put into the plaintext to identify itself may plausibly also accidentally be produced by [a million monkeys on typewriters/one in a million human writers], since in the end, the writing is using the same language and symbols that humans use. How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness?

"This is my emotional support gun. It makes me feel safe despite my CPTSD and is therefore assistive technology."

I notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over that have trouble understanding the concept.

"Failure to Ground"?

Back in the eighties we had to jerk off all our clients manually

True, this is more of a "honk honk"(like a clown nose) type situation.

I did understand that analogy from your first comment, because I have neither been living under a rock for the past few years nor suffered a heavy concussion minutes before making my reply.

That may seem needlessly harshly worded, but I wanted to very bluntly tell you to not expect/treat your fellow commenters like they are pants-on-head stupid.

My intention with GP was finding a good term for this failure to question oneself. That's not even strictly what hallucinations in the context of LLM mean in common discourse, which would be more along the lines of meaning both the (mechanism of) production of the wrong info in the first place, as well as (more implicitly and softly) that propensity to fail to question themselves. You would have understood that, if your model of my ability to understand had been more generous.

Using LLMs to find errors and using LLMs to produce error-free artifacts are two extremely different levels of challenge.

There should be/does anyone know if there is a name for this? When you truth-check exactly once and then just blindly runaway after that?

Edit: Apparently in medicine there exists the concept of "premature closure", where the carer settles on a diagnosis early and stops considering other possibilities. Seems like a decent match?

>Locally we've got an overpopulation of goats, and apparently they're going to start shooting them from helicopters.

Metal!

These are always cherry-picked, though. They tell you about the 1/10 that went really impressively, ignoring the other 9 shots at the task where the clanker started to try selling tungsten cubes (in person, wearing a blue shirt).

Pentagons are plenty occult fnord!

Maybe they do get it, but are choosing to lean more into the authenticity angle. An art form, a medium, evolves when new cultures and sub-cultures take it up and add their own stuff, both the creator and the audience.

Maybe from their perspective they're correctly doing it their way, instead of, as in your perspective, failing to do it your way.

>the goal that it must never fail

That's a good way to put it

"Very experienced" might mean different things to you. The oldest repo on their GH is from 2017. As for highly skilled: Could you point closer to which parts of their portfolio we are supposed to be awestruck by?

Wow, it's so human already!