byteknight

On what planet is JS better than TS. You ever work with JS?

Get off my lawn is alive and well it seems

How on earth does buying Wiz force other developers to move? I think the tinfoil is too tight.

It didn't stop. What are you referring to?

I mean the near-impossible odds weren't enough to dissuade them, I doubt some more statistics will do it.

I appreciate the attempt but the reasoning of "it requires maintenance" is entirely moot. You have to do this regardless. Its just whether or not you publish it open-source. You are still saying, internally, this is good enough for customers, when you push it out.

This is a (very) thinly veiled attempt at a closed garden of sorts, IMHO. Its a "clean" excuse for not giving away the milk for free, but it falls short on actual reasoning.

You can only hold computers accountable if you can guarantee no outside modification. We still haven't ever successfully had a system that's not "pop-able" that I am aware of.

You took a major leap. No one made any such argument.

Where do you get that? He is postulating the external abstraction you are using has more features than you use. He is saying implement only the parts you use.

You may be unaware, but CCP has far more control over private companies than you might think: https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2024/09/fused-together...

This is not America. Your ideas do not apply the same way.

Do they move the telescope over the year to account for movement? How is that calculated? Does this change with being closer to planets and their gravitational pull?

Asked from a total moron.

And leaves no meaningful result. Without knowing why he gripped the paper it is purely left for interpretation and does not guide to a singular understanding.

this is not one of those scenarios. The answer is clearly not obvious.

While I dont know your scenario as an avid user of both gpt and claude, I would recommend move away from Google style search queries, and begin conversing. The more you give the LLM the more you'll get close to what you want.

Making these types of choices are done in the interest of the writer and not the reader. Plain and simple. It draws intrigue, sometimes undue. This is one of them. That doesn't make it bad or wrong to do. As a side note, generally, its not a good idea to take make stances defending someone acting in self-interest with the guise of "art".

Both yes and no are one syllable. Your drawn out drama-incucing style of writing left a huge hanger that makes it unpleasurable.

I think there is an inherent weight associated with the intrinsic knowledge opposed to the reasoning steps as intrinsic knowledge can override reasoning.

Written out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42773282

I believe this comes from our verbiage.

If I asked you, "hey. How many Rs in strawberry?". You're going to tell me 2, because the likelihood is I am asking about the ending Rs. That's at least how I'd interpret the question without the "llm test" clouding my vision.

Same for if I asked how many gullible. I'd say "it's a double L after the u".

It's my guess this has muddled the training data.

I may be looking at this too deeply, but I think this suggests that the reasoning is not always utilized when forming the final reply.

For example, IMMEDIATELY, upon it's first section of reasoning where it starts counting the letters:

> R – wait, is there another one? Let me check again. After the first R, it goes A, W, B, E, then R again, and then Y. Oh, so after E comes R, making that the second 'R', and then another R before Y? Wait, no, let me count correctly.

1. During its counting process, it repeatedly finds 3 "r"s (at positions 3, 8, and 9)

2. However, its intrinsic knowledge that "strawberry" has "two Rs" keeps overriding this direct evidence

3. This suggests there's an inherent weight given to the LLM's intrinsic knowledge that takes precedence over what it discovers through step-by-step reasoning

To me that suggests an inherent weight (unintended pun) given to its "intrinsic" knowledge, as opposed to what is presented during the reasoning.

Disclaimer: I am very well aware this is not a valid test or indicative or anything else. I just thought it was hilarious.

When I asked the normal "How many 'r' in strawberry" question, it gets the right answer and argues with itself until it convinces itself that its (2). It counts properly, and then says to it self continuously, that can't be right.

https://gist.github.com/IAmStoxe/1a1e010649d514a45bb86284b98...

I absolutely love the look. Is it a template or custom?

I would argue because we can't postulate a means of testing it now does not mean it is thereby impossible to prove; merely currently.

Now you're intentionally mixing VFX and animation. Animation, at least in my meaning, was more cartoon.

All you did was make the phrase "makes things up" more palatable. It still means the same thing. He lies.

Feels like you're looking for a strawman argument, and may have found one.

I would retort that animation and real-life-looking video do different things to our psyche. As an uneducated wanna-be intellectual, I would lean toward thinking real-looking objects more directly influence our perception of life than animations.

I feel like a lot of the good that projects like this do get muddied by the overly ambitious claims.

This was an incredible explanation of the types of issues facing locks. It may not be exhaustive, but it is certainly illuminating the types of issues and potentially unforeseen problems with distributed systems. I loved reading it, thanks.

Seems logical to me.

I know some of these words!

Even though I agree with you, if adding features meant keeping all existing features we'd never progress anywhere.