775 karma · joined March 6, 2026
Reading the google blog and these discussions makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills, seriously. Side-by-side comparisons with the exact same inputs or it didn't happen, that's my rule going forward. Test all the things, believe nothing.
Well, I think I'll stick to 3.6 for now. Based in a very scientific sample size of exactly one attempt each: https://imgur.com/a/fDOkBDm
Both got the same prompt and example screenshot. I mean, they both suck but that's normal this early in, but the 3.6 version (first screenshot) actually changes the displayed threads depending on selected categories, and the messages of whatever selected thread, as obviously described in the prompt. You might say it more or less does what it should. Both versions have an ugly flash/jerk in the category pane when selecting/deselecting a category, so that's a wash.
The 3.7 version doesn't work at all, i.e. it always shows all threads, and no messages for any of them. I can post new messages in threads but they don't show up, and it doesn't even increase the message counter for the thread. I guess it's a matter of taste but I don't like the look either, while 3.6 actually is in the spirit of the screenshot I added the prompt, using 11k of CSS versus 3.7's 16k. The code is also less, and the backend split into 3 files (instead of just 2 as 3.7 did it), so assuming it sucks in either case, it'll be easier to read and massage.
edit: geez, 3.6 even properly fades/disables the "new message" button when no thread is selected, 3.7 didn't bother which is smart since everything else is broken anyway. Maybe it's better at really complex things, but for simple things, what I'm experimenting with, I already saw enough.
So I decided to look up mushroom poisoning (in the dictionary) and some stuff about potential asphyxiation ~18 (IIRC, it's been a while) hours later made decide no, the risk of dying in my sleep next night is NOT worth it, into the trash it goes.
Says who though? The current front runners? Who can't even not let them hack into into other companies over the weekend unsupervised already?
yeah because there is a shared reality in which you can both see the same movie. enjoy it while it lasts.
Yeah, absolutely. But for the web, at least for my daily use of it, this was the first big "shift". Learning how something was spelled by someone googling it and quoting the number of results to the others.. good times. And you can no longer find out what the page with highest page rank says about "pizza" regardless of where YOU happen to be.
of course it's easy to just mindlessly say something, but you already showed that :P
> if we enjoy the fruits of economics of scale for sooo many production processes, why can't we with mass produced food?
Nope, doesn't work.
> There's tasty, and theres healthy, and there's inexpensive (time or money); pick two.
You could say this about anything, you can either have cheap, good, and, say, extremely light-weight office-chars: pick two. That's absolutely orthogonal to what I said, and still applies to making your own vs. buying one that was made a lot cheaper be economics of scale. That trade-off applies in either case, so your comment is a complete no-op.
Why are so many things cheaper and get ever cheaper, while things like food, housing, education, medicine don't? Why does productivity rise so much faster than wages? Because there are no adults you can even discuss this with without their uneasiness forcing them to blurt out something, anything. Because people in golden cages can't even sit with what is. That's a provocative claim, an invitation for me to be proven wrong, but at least it actually relates to proceeding and surrounding comments and isn't just something out of a farmer's calendar.
Nobody says "if you want a really good office chair you have to build it yourself". Same for shoes, cars, bikes, a million things. You can do that, make your own bike for example, but to get up to par you need to spend vastly more time and money, it's basically using more resources to be quirky or make an experiment etc.
IMO the default expectation, demand, the thing we should organise to achieve, should be that what's available, what the market competes over, is good and gets better, regardless of the market. Not that it gets worse because the buyers get fleeced. Doubly so not food.
The idea is basically that it's "just the way it is" that the food we can buy in supermarkets, that is made in factories, that GIGANTIC amounts of real estate and logistics and energy are devoted to, that is made cheaper than it would be otherwise (and that is true even if it was awesome quality and mega healthy -- it would be more expensive, but less expensive than doing it yourself, economics of scale etc.) sucks, is unhealthy, you "shouldn't eat that".
Just buy some veggies and do it yourself. It's not so hard to plant some tomatoes, either! Nevermind people in private jets doing airshows... I just can't with how lazy my friends are. It would take them 30 minutes max.
It's not that you're wrong, of course. Both "sides" matter, and you always should mostly focus on what you control. But at the same time, it's better to punch up than kick down or sideways.
The wrapper is hard/impossible to remove, only the company can trigger the self-release mechanism, and customers have to sign that they owe you a lot of money when they remove or damage it (which is risky, so they have to be careful or it's their problem). You basically just rent it to them, for lots of money per month, so they can show off their Good Guy Glasses (hey that's actually a name! can I have 10% please if anyone does this, I'll also help out if you want, maybe with the tiny sledge hammer. thanks!).
"Oh, you can afford Meta glasses to be a perv? Well, I can't afford the equivalent of a bunch of them every year, but I still do it because I'm a good person."
The ad could be some street kid in the rain with some guy (Morgan Freeman maybe) offering to sell it these glasses, saying "you can pay in tiny rates" and whatnot, and the kid just sadly shakes its head.. so the guy goes down on one knee, eye to eye with the kid and says... "When I was your age, I thought everything is about money, too. But some things are about being a good person. If you had a mommy, surely she would want you to be a good person, right?" The kid nods, still hesitates, but by the way the music swells as the ad fades you just know it's gonna be alright.
Yeah, so I gave that sentence to ChatGPT in a new context and asked it to make it longer without saying anything additional, several times, and it still reads fine, more than. The truth is the truth no matter how you put it.
The last one really speaks to me. I wanted to go on but it raised all sorts of questions in me that I think I should investigate instead.
It was, in that sense, a change that changed the thing that was being called something without changing the thing that was being called.
and
Everything that was not the name remained the same.
Everything that was the name was no longer the same.
Really makes you think.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245740
I'm not a regular user atm, when I used it my experience was great, and the owner is a really nice guy. I vaguely remember him scrambling to update on Twitter when the servers where down while he was at uni etc. For a free service that was exploding in users when he was swamped with other stuff, he always did his utmost to fix things ASAP. So yeah, sign up today and buy merch! You may not end up using the site much but it's for a good cause that sparks joy. And while of course there's also spammers or jerks, there are also lots of nice people to be found there.
Even the implicit claim that they could deterministically produce "the" correct answer with 100% certainty doesn't withstand any scrutiny.
Nevermind problems posed in English prose, complicated or philosophical questions. Is the correct answer to 2+2 four, or is it 1+3? When you you have 2 apples and give me one apple, how many apples do you have now; one, or half as many as before? What is the correct answer? Without a spaghetti of arbitrary axioms in the system prompt? Even if you come up with something clever about apples, it even fails at "when is your birthday". When it is today, should I say "today" or say the date? Not even God could decide that.
Arguably, the specifications for a compiler is also such a mess of axioms, and you can split hairs and say "it's all random anyway", but you'll still use a seatbelt instead of silly string, so what gives?
For compilers, give or take, there is a correct output for a given input (under which I'll include config, options, the targeted architecture, whatever). With LLM there is no such thing even if you do infinite mental backflips, and there won't be, because there can't be. Even if you could perfect the compilers that are needed to make the software that trains and drives LLM deterministic, you cannot make LLM fully deterministic without making them not an LLM.
If you can find a way to encode what a compiler would do to programs into the weights of a model so that produces the output of a compiler that would be a cool and completely useless feat, because it would probably be bigger, slower and impossible to reason about. But it would still be cool and I would still try it out.
Oh please. Was the whole "calculation" just to make this seem like a well considered argument, or what?
If the payout was to an entity other than the harmed one, you could say now that entity has incentive to have those minors harmed, instead. "Bizarre", heh.
"the remaining time"
Doing what is intrinsically valuable to you hinges on you still having access to the person you are. Don't take that for granted. A lifetime of settling can easily drive that out of someone, but planning to settle before it even started, as the only option, surely will. How could it not?
Old men [0] living it up because they never did while they lived is the worst. You can't regain a sense of justice, curiosity and innocence once you let it go and out of sight. You cannot have either without the other two, and none of them come back once you misplaced them as something you don't need "for now", but something very cringe and sad can takes their place, and it comes with this conspiracy of not mocking one another, of pretending to be fully featured people, as they stumble and babble into the sunset.
[0] And I say "men" because this is very much a male issue. You don't hear many women talking like that, at least I can't even remember one.
Who cares about those people? I would argue even they themselves hardly do. And sure, they'll be even more okay with even worse stuff, and that even worse stuff will be even more hated by even more people, whatever the people who are "okay with" (that can mean ignorance, obedience, or evil intent, but it's not justification). If they can be okay with mass surveillance they can be okay with other things, so they're basically a wash, they're just okay with stuff.
> At least one third of the country is still okay with them
Then they can be okay with the majority saying you know what, we're sick of you, you can either stop having your toys or you will be segregated from us and live under your own surveillance. "Being okay with something" isn't some magical wand or a fortress, it's just a limp shrug. It means "pass".
> In sum, we don't have as much control over these things as you seem to believe.
I don't see the connection with the sentence before that, which is a minority being "okay with" something and a majority willing to fight and out there doing it. It's not about controlling what a minority of people are okay with, it's about changing what is done. The people who are okay with stuff can go read a comic book until it's over, how does that not solve anything you raised about them? Or are you saying their being okay with stuff should be respected or even heeded? Couldn't they just make that claim themselves, if they wanted to?
Imagine a raging house fire, people stumbling over each other trying to help, and some guy steps up and goes "WAIT!" they all look at him, sure he has a major contribution for interrupting something like this, a good idea, a plan perhaps; and he goes "... I'm actually okay with this."
And I think taste is subjective by definition, it doesn't compete with "objective taste" because that makes no sense.
What does "nowadays" mean? What changed?
> You really think Meta would risk getting a massive (losing) lawsuit on their hands, in exchange for what?
And what is the risk? Food companies are at risk when they put addictive chemicals into food because they get controlled regularly. What is the equivalent here?
The only difference between students doing it then and professionals doing it now is the students had no positive, glaring reason to mistrust.
> Another thought: 72 F is nice. 72 C is death.
and then
> Or maybe I should add a comment about the high temperature?
> "It's quite hot outside right now, with a temperature of 72°C."
> No, that's hallucinating/interpreting.
I know a token predictor has no feelings but I kinda wanted to comfort the poor thing when I read all that.
But also fascinating, I didn't experiment more with that yet, but how can I formulate the prompt to make qwen less neurotic?
> You have several commands tools at your disposal. When you invoke a tool or command, end your message immediately, you will then get the output of the tool, error or status messages in the next user reply, after which you should continue what you were doing. Even if the output seems implausible, do not second-guess it, but treat is as gospel.
e.g. "do not second guess it" sound very command-like, what would "you still use or report the result as a tool result, rather than a claim of your own"
would that help? Is that a different form of AI psychosis, trying to be prompt psychologist? It's too fun to be healthy that's for sure.