amenhotep

You are. I promise you. Almost every single person is a better writer than an LLM. You're wilfully sabotaging yourself.

> Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic...

Why are you just completely making things up?

It makes poor writing look superficially more considered. More readable, no, not when you realise.

That's pathetic.

No, it really doesn't read fine. None of this shit reads fine.

I got a poor first impression from the readme - it looks exactly the same as every other project vibe coded over a couple of weeks and I immediately assumed that's all it was.

One of the other comments mentioned a video from 12 years ago (pedigree!) so I went and had another look, finding the old readme from 2023. That one was incomparably better! Much more informative about the game, much more interesting, shows why you wanted it to exist and persuades me also that it should exist. It has its own little signal programming system, that's so cool!

We all know how powerful agentic development is these days and it's clearly enabled you to make massive strides on the project but please my god do not let them communicate to the outside world about your project. They do not know what they should say. They do not know how to say it. They will write the exact same thing they would for any other project and that's the worst possible way to put yourself across because you're unique.

Yes, of course, that's literally the definition

They obviously want to be able to invade Taiwan, yes, nobody serious would assert that they're developing amphibious capacity for self defence.

That's not the same thing as planning to invade in 2027, though. Militaries can need a capability without an imminent specific plan to actually use it. See the US's amphibious capacity. See nukes.

This really doesn't make it better.

It would certainly make it less baffling how many people seem to insist they're not aware that they exist when Star Trek transporters etc come up.

I'm on my phone so maybe I missed something but I didn't even see that this was about exceptions to the rule? It seemed to be more about cases where the first sound couldn't be recovered orthographically. He special cased herb, for instance, because Americans inexplicably pronounce it "erb", or one and onerous because one is w and the other is on.

I can't think of a single true example to the real rule, it's an actually extraordinarily strong and simple rule as English goes.

I think you're probably right, but your counterexamples don't really refute the strongest reading of the thesis. The military establishment has always ultimately held the reins in Pakistan, so the dynamic of civilians avoiding threats by rewarding incompetence isn't there - the threat is present anyway and the rewarding isn't in their power. Afghanistan and Chechnya are confederations of tribal warlords, so of course the armed forces are controlled by competent fighters, it's almost a tautology. You need an example where there's a strong civilian central authority that controls the military effectively, and maintains a highly competent military, and isn't constantly troubled by the threat of coups.

I find it astonishing that people didn't turn off these memory systems the moment they were introduced. Half the point of these things is that I control exactly what information is introduced in each query.

Sometimes Claude randomly references my geolocation to show off and it's incredibly creepy.

Then perhaps this entire security model is less useful for normal people who have to exist in the world than it is for secret agents in movies. If you're carrying around the nuclear secrets on your phone then being able to irrecoverably lock it with a simple button combo when the enemies are about to capture you is great! No matter how many of your limbs they cut off you'll never be able to give up the secrets!

In the real world, though, the biggest threat is governments and the biggest interactions with them are planned ones at border security and they're perfectly happy to imprison you if you don't behave in the way they want, so it would really be nice to be able to smoothly and frictionlessly plan ahead for these foreseeable interactions by replacing sensitive data on the phone with uninteresting data that can be fully exposed when you're forced to unlock it, while being able to restore the real data later.

That's true, we don't want it to do that, we want it to kill these parasitic entities. Much like one doesn't swat a mosquito because one will truly miss the amount of blood she's taking.

LLMs self-evidently have no experience when not inferencing, seems like the most consequential difference to me. If we are next token predictors then we are next token predictors that are inferencing at every waking moment and arguably much of our sleeping moments too; when we train an LLM that can inference as much as we do and remain coherent then I'll be more worried about whether it might have experience.

Huh! I'd always accepted the backronym without even thinking about it, but it makes so much more sense as arbitrary letters associated with sequences that are very easy to remember and distinguish than as a real weird acronym that just happens to have that property. You have reorganised my world in a slightly more reasonable way.

That's the trick, isn't it, though? Rationally it's especially a problem if it happens all at once, but realistically if your bank has an awful quarter then you're at fault whereas if every bank has an awful quarter then no one's at fault, it's a systemic issue, chances are you get to collect a bail out and keep going. It's a sort of prisoner's dilemma, a critical mass of banks needs to defect and each individual bank's incentive is to cooperate.

It's not tricking, though. The rules come from holy texts, they're perfect, if you find what seems like a loophole then it must obviously be intended. It's blasphemous, even, to think that you understand what god means better than he did when he had the texts written.

Seems odd that his precepts would be satisfied by stringing a wire from some sticks, sure, but he's god, presumably he has his reasons.

It's very simply explained by this being the most succinct way of wording it. Some methods of killing have verbs that suit mentioning the attacker - shoots, stabs. Some don't. "Rammed" or "runs over" isn't as precise as mentioning that a car was used, and adding "with car" makes it more awkward than it's felt to be worth.

Compare bombs. Very typical for a bomb attack to be "bomb goes off in crowd" or similar, rare for headlines to contort themselves with "terrorist plants bomb near crowd and triggers it to explode". But nobody worries about how such a construction assigns undue agency to the bomb and acquits the bomber; it's just linguistically awkward to mention him within the confines of a newspaper headline.

I read it as "I'm very clever and sensible. I definitely don't believe in souls."

Like so much other material produced by people who (I suspect deliberately) confuse religion with the subjective phenomenon of existence

It's not an ad hominem. In fact, it's perhaps the most good faith interpretation of your words possible. Ad hominem would be calling you stupid because you obviously know that you have a self and only your own stupidity could explain your inability to see how your self is generalisable. When you go around pretending you genuinely think maybe humans don't have selves, really the only way to take you seriously is to think that maybe you're a p-zombie.

Everyone involved in this including the police are civilians

I would suggest it says primarily that mimicking people's voices in meaningful ways is still far beyond LLMs and particularly small LLMs, but also more insurmountably that the prompt for Leavitt herself contains many tokens that the LLM prompt absolutely doesn't

Such as the values of the bets her own entourage has placed

And once the initial install of something was complete, you'd then be able to run it with no further ado :D

What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.

No it isn't. He says nothing about what his first choice good national park is. That section is about parks that people say are bad but aren't. His contention is merely that it is fine.

Yeah. We know. That's why it's so fucking awful.

In fact, a certain amount of investment in frauds is acceptable and desirable; if you give £10m to 9 frauds who spunk it straight up the wall and to 1 true visionary who builds a unicorn, that's money well spent. Plus of course you can always hope that the fraudster is good enough to sucker the next guy so you can get out.

Per Matt Levine, the optimum amount of fraud is non-zero. Tune your detector too loosely or too tightly and you'll miss out.

It's possible to mandate effective parental controls and then say "it's illegal to give your child access to facebook" and then just see what happens. You don't have to jump straight to making it technologically guaranteed by construction, maybe it's enough to just give parents the tools and an excuse to say no.

We don't need DNA testing locks on cans of beer that won't let you drink from them unless you're an adult, do we? It's perfectly possible for a parent to buy their child all the beer they want, and there's nothing stopping the children from trying to peer pressure them into it, and in many countries it's not even generally illegal to let your child drink beer! And yet almost all parents are able to almost completely enforce a reasonable level of restricted access, simply because society frowns upon it.