hermannj314

My daughter and her friends have their own paid chatgpt. She said she uses it to help with math homework and described to me exactly why I bought a $200 TI-92 in the 90s with a CAS.

Adoption is high with young people.

Based on policy over the last decade, it seems America would rather have every rich person own an electric vehicle than every poor person eat dinner.

We really should do more tax credit for solar panels and EV credits, I know a doctor that has really struggled to buy his 3rd AirBnB rental.

If China stops buying our soybeans, we can start planting other things. Aren't natural food dyes just a great way to encourage diversity in domestic agriculture?

I am not an expert in synthetic vs. natural, but I feel like this decision isn't actually about health (I don't see any reason to believe why Wal-Mart cares at all about the health of Americans) but rather some larger macroeconomic reality.

She needed the SUV because it is safer for the kids, the more expensive cleaning supplies to save the environment, and the new furniture because the previous color scheme was last decade.

The people convincing you it is a virtue to move fast always happen to be selling a car.

Be careful that you aren't optimizing your life in response to someone else's marketing campaign.

To be clear, I am talking about a hypothetical ought-to-be and not specifically discussing the current law anywhere.

I hear you and I agree public spaces involve us working and coexisting together, not tailoring the public space to what one person wants.

On the other hand, there is something in me that doesn't like for-profit rage bait creators monetizing how I react to a guy shoving a camera in my face and doing something irregular. I feel like it is a type of assault we don't have a name for yet but that should conceivably be criminal.

I just realize that I'm acting like the those that first saw the printed word or a camera and felt uneasy about it, I am just an old man angry that video cameras and globalization of content exists. I'm probably just a luddite trying to stop the world from progressing.

The idea of public and private needs a similar distinction like libel and defamation.

Ephemeral public has no expectation of ephemeral privacy, but me walking down a street with a handful of people on it should not lead me to expect that being recorded and having it broadcast to the entire human race, permanently, for eternity.

Do you have data to back up this claim?

The marketing side of the business is very data driven with lots of very intelligent statisticians and scientific testing for ad placement and ad content, etc. I cant accept that the same people that are manipulating my thoughts and desires with algorithmically optimized content never once thought to run hypothesis test on performance of targeted ads based on browsing history.

I feel like you are making a bold claim, am I misunderstanding?

Ask your doctor for a specific drug and he will reply, without disclosing his sponsorship money, about another drug that is just as good.

At least Google writes the word sponsored, the real world doesn't do that.

I peaked at around 21st but stopped playing because it seemed to be a lottery.

I ran simulations with perfect information and found the lower bound for scores. Scenario 2 was mean 3743 rejections with 265 std deviation. This is the curve formed from simulated data and a strategy that had with perfect information, i.e. you could build the best possible strategy after knowing the random assignments.

So winners had scores that I could not even theoretically achieve unless I could see 1000s of scenarios.

So I ran my code locally and was happy that my code was always just a few rejections off of optimal and called that a private success.

Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is always only one side of the story. I agree it would have false negative impact (someone does not submit a good report that otherwise would have), but I don't think that instantly makes it a horrible idea. I think the net effect would have to be studied, but I highly doubt all true postive reports would become false negatives. The goal is reducing false positives, so it is going to be a tradeoff and you'd need specific numbers to conclude anything.

Do you really think it is a horrible idea? That is just so harsh of a label.

It seems to me the kid is going to be out around the time he is 30, most likely has many millions stashed away the Feds never discovered, and he will do fine.

If I have learned anything in the last two decades, crime does indeed pay, the risk is absolutely worth the reward, and there is almost no long-term reputational damage from dedicating yourself to this sort of life.

He is going to land on his feet and live a life better than most of us too scared to break the rules.

Start charging users to submit a vulnerability report.

It doesn't matter if it made by AI or a human, spammers operate by cheaply overproducing and externalizing their work onto you to validate their shit. And it works because sometimes they do deliver value by virtue of large numbers. But they are a net negative for society. Their model stops working if they have to pay for the time they wasted.

I was hoping someone would say this. I think the virtue of the trademark is an implied warranty of the value of the brand.

I would like to live in a world where deceptive trade practices did not exist.

Imagine selling a "full-self driving auto-pilot hands-free car!" And then arguing all the letters are lower case in the brand name so all those dead drivers should have known better and should have bought the capital F version.

The right-to-repair opponents would like to remind you that if you attempt to disable these ads you will impact the safety of the temperature module and thus everyone you love.

I thought my point was clearly made the 1st time.

How can we promise to "do better" when shit like "no author or distributor accepts responsibility to anyone for the consequences of using it or for whether it serves any particular purpose or works at all" is in the legal agreement of the software you are using?

Making someone agree to that while simultaneously on the side making promises that the software works is used car salesman gimmicks. The only things that matters is what you put in writing.

Almost all software has a no warranty clause. I am not a lawyer but in pretty plain English every piece of software I have ever used has said exactly that I can fuck off if I expect it to work or do anything.

To clarify - I dont think it is naive to assume the software is as-is with all responsibilities on the user since that is exactly what lawyers have made all software companies say that for over 50 years.

That's been the human solution to those problems, it is possible AGI would probably find a different solution.

Most interviews are based on the premise that if a diabetic can't synthesize their own insulin in their basement, they are somehow cheating at the game of life.

If my wife's blood sugar is high, she takes insulin. If you need to solve a constraint problem, use a constraint solver.

If your company doesn't make and sell constraint solving software, why do you need me to presume that software doesn't exist and invent it from scratch?

I am sure you can still encourage people to commit probabilistic self-harm in the UK.

You can't tell someone to kill thelselves but you show alcohol ads to an alcoholic or encourage someone to modify their staircase to increase risk of fall death.

My point is this law is a stupidly narrow definition of self-harm.

"I think your foyer staircase would be more aesthetic wthhout a handrail" is the new "unalive yourself"

It is a long con, but the expected value of self-harm is still positive and it is legally protected speech in the UK.

Nice. I am tired of tobacco, alcohol, and gambling content. I am glad to see encouraging people to self-harm with these products is now banned.

Oh wait...self-harm just includes suicide. I guess it is still fine to comvince people to destroy their lives as long as it has a revenue curve behind it.

But our CISO paint-by-number checklist says only people with background checks and the NDAs can enter the data center. We can't have emergency services stealing our customer's bits!

The DoD is very efficient at finding something they are getting for free and convincing everyone it's in their best interest to pay a team of contractors for it.

Dude, half my stuff on here is downvoted. I am not a good writer, but I do my best. My opinions and thoughts are my own and I am not using ChatGPT to make hot takes on hacker news, but I do use ChatGPT and have conversations with it.

Sometimes when I talk to British people, I start to do an accent a little bit. I think I just chameleon my tone to recent conversations, but I can't convince you otherwise.

Unrelatedly, there is a upended tortoise outside my house struggling in the heat. I am not sure why I refuse to help him, can you tell me why?

I am a human being, but I have been training on ChatGPT conversations for a few years, is it starting to show?

As far as I know, the blue/green mentality is a cultural issue for Apple. They would be fine if Android users had their data read by the government, because that injustice is a market differentiator for them they can then sell.

I'm not saying they shouldn't lobby for what they believe in, but Apple always stops short of making the world a better place and seems to care only if their walled garden is secure.

As a believer in equal protection under the law, it is never a win when a powerful company or government lobbies for a specific carve out for only it's customers or its country. Human rights like privacy don't belong to those who bought the right phone or were born on the right piece of soil.

This isn't a win, this is solidifying and reinforcing the idea that different laws should exist for different classes of people - those who can afford to make the government look the other way and those that can't.

Congratulations to Apple on lobbying for its own money. Very noble.

135 Americans commit suicide daily, 6 per hour, so 6 since this aricle was posted an hour ago. Most likely 1 or 2 of them were using ChatGPT.

What is the point? That suicides should drop now that we are using LLMs?

NYTimes is amplifying a FUD campaign as part of an ongoing lawsuit. Someone's daughter or son is going to kill themselves every 10 minutes today and that is not OpenAIs fault no matter what editorial amplification tricks the NYTimes uses to distort the reality field.

This quiz is a good reminder of why I support ranked choice voting.