permo-w

>What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it?

There's a major inconsistency here. You're consistently claiming that other people don't understand poverty, and yet you essentially made the point that you're not poor ("those people have lower IQ"). So either you started off poor and then worked your way up via some route that's obviously not this job, or you haven't experienced it either, or you are actually poor and aren't doing this work. Which is it?

>Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty?

You haven't provided any evidence. If you can prove the suicide rate is higher for these farmers, you may have a point, but even then, the suicide rate does not necessarily have any bearing on the overall rate of happiness. It's possible that a bigger majority are happier farming, but a small minority are pushed more inexorably towards suicide. Perhaps that isn't true either. We simply don't know without evidence.

That's my basic point. You're making strong claims, but you quite clearly simply do not know and are deciding based on instinct and perhaps a vague desire to have your favoured political candidates get more votes. You haven't provided any justification whatsoever. "I think it's right", "maybe they commit suicide" and "they don't vote for people I prefer" are not justifications, they're guesses. As much as you may want me to ("Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?"). I have made no claims whatsoever, simply pointed out the lack of nuance using hypotheticals.

Having more money is very good. Psychological damage is very bad. Your point is that psychological damage doesn't matter and having more food is all that matters. Okay, so should you send your child off to fight for a warlord if it means they have more food? Please try to grasp that's there's nuance.

>If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate.

I've put this at the end because its beside the main point, but this sentence is just a barrel of conceptual misunderstandings. Trauma is a type of psychological issue, so "trauma and psychological issues" makes no sense without a prepended "other". Neither trauma nor psychological issues are metaphysical concerns. Metaphysical concerns are issues of first principles and deeper understandings of concepts. It's a branch of philosophy. If you don't believe me, Google it, or ask ChatGPT.

They're suggesting that you listen to and address the points they made rather than simply rephrase your original viewpoint.

I'd suggest you try to understand that psychological problems are real and that you only get one brain. You may say "you don't understand poverty", but it equally sounds like you don't understand trauma and psychological issues. You only get one brain and life is about being happy. If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? It sounds like it is for you as long as they stop voting for candidates you don't like. It's easy to not care about people's happiness if they don't vote for the candidates you like, right?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have distaste for farming out unpleasant work to poorer countries. But also I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept that it's a fact of life and realise that it's literally redirecting wealth from the richest companies in the world to some of the poorer people in the world.

I'm more bothered by the fact that once again an article focuses on the plight of an identity deemed oppressed rather than broader concern for working classes. All it does is sell it as pandering rather than exposing a genuine issue. And as usual from the post-modern left, dividing rather than uniting. The article's entire justification for this is the absolute cop-out: >Women form half or more of this workforce.

As another example, I read an article the other day complaining about an advertising campaign from a colossal multinational company replacing the "o"s in London tube stop names with "0.0"s. Why? Not because of excessive corporate encroachment into public spaces, but because it might be confusing for disabled people. Maybe it would be, but once again the broader problem of capitalist overreach is ignored in favour of identity. Corporate exploitation is fine as long as it doesn't impact people who aren't able white men

Blame Visa and Mastercard and the puritanical-when-it's-convenient media

Nonetheless, de facto, they are independent. And if you'd glance back at my comment, I deliberately referred to it as "assimilating with mainland China" to pay lip service to them seeing themselves as the true government of China, in an attempt to avoid this very nitpick.

Taiwan is already independent. Surely the normal way to refer to it would be as coming out against assimilation with mainland China?

Voting on articles?

How many times are we going to reinvent the wheel of LLM usage and applaud? Why every day is there another LLM usage article adding essentially nothing educational or significant to the discourse voted to the top of the frontpage? Am I just jaded? It feels like the bar for "Successful article on Hacker News" is so much lower for LLM discourse than for any other subject

How does it feel to read yet another unbelievably unenlightening article about LLM usage voted to the top of the frontpage for the thousandth day in a row?

it's not short-sighted, it's virtue signalling

vibe coding applies to very few people in this thread. almost all the people here are talking about using LLMs to do something they could do anyway, to save time, or getting the LLM to teach them how to code something. this is not vibe coding. vibe coding is lacking coding experience and slapping in some prompts to just get something that works

my comments were all on different topics making different points in different comment chains. the guy I was replying to here was essentially making the same point over and over in a single comment thread, daring someone to argue with him

all of my comments were on different subjects

people understandably love to understand complex things as simple logical puzzle pieces. they do it with words too. people have this tendency to act like words are formally-defined mathematical concepts, and then agonise over whether their experiences fit those concepts, then use those concepts as proof for their arguments. this is, of course, essentially simply a description of communicating with language, and for most words it's absolutely fine; the words have so little variance and breadth in definition that it doesn't matter. the issue arises when the words are not clearly defined, and it becomes even worse (and more common) when the words are emotionally loaded. people adore using emotionally, loaded, weakly defined terms to end an argument quickly. it's essentially sophistry. we're all absolutely awash with these terms right now due to the dominance of headlines, tweets, content titles and other short form stretches that demand dense, emotionally charged meaning in a small space. if you'd like some examples, take "fascism", "sexual harassment" and "eugenics".

don't say someone is "essentially a eugenicist". it's such a vaguely defined term that this borders on useless. if you believe something like this, justify it with: "she supported x policy I disagree with" or "she believed in the reduction of y trait in the populace" or whatever it is that triggered you to take on this belief in the first place

don't call someone else's comment low effort and follow it with little more than a strawman-ish summary of what you'd like the comment to have said

you're all over this thread seemingly trying to get someone to argue this point with you, or perhaps just to prove how nuts Elon is, as if people don't already know that, for example, from the time he did a nazi salute in public to a crowd

I was wondering this. what is the minimum amount of text an LLM needs to be coherent? fun of an idea as this is, the samples of its responses are basically babbling nonsense. going further, a lot of what makes LLMs so strong isn't their original training data, but the RLHF done afterwards. RLHF would be very difficult in this case

e+ is such an unintuitive decimal representation system. going in blindly, it's completely non-obvious what "e" stands for, surely "d" would make far more sense. also, the namespace for e is plenty filled up as is, and, most of all, +12 implies 12 additional digits, not digits after the point

Google's choice to use it for calculation results despite having essentially no restriction on text space always annoyed me. I think this is the first time I've seen a human using it

Apple has this feature on iOS. no idea where they source the info from, but in your keychain it will say something like "this password has appeared in a data leak"

I had to discover this myself. when I first started working on personal projects on my PC, I'd give each of them some whimsical name, usually a pun or play on a quote from a tv show or song lyric. then in a few months time I'd come looking for the project and have to spend five minutes scrolling through a bunch of esoteric word formations and random half sentences trying to remember what whimsical mood I was in when I made the project. now I just name everything whatever I think I'm most likely to remember in 3 months. I do find it a little sad, losing some creativity and colour, so maybe one day I'll make a tag/shadow title system so I don't need directly descriptive names

I'm not sure I've ever seen a contact page that wasn't like this. I always felt it was basically reasonable. if you can direct someone to an answer without having to waste money/time/compute on providing custom service, then that seems basically reasonable to me. yes it's annoying, but it's not a pattern I've ever felt was particularly dark. I'm perfectly happy with "speaking to a human" being the last port of call to fix a problem. as long as it is available somewhere

both have an obsession with seeking the truth and understanding what's real

even second hand?

to nitpick, short of holding evidence of a literal internal memoradum stating it, $100,000 or $100,000,000,000 won't be able to prove that a company has no intention to resume the use of a trademark at some point. the entire affair is pointless fantasy

honourable of an idea as this is: "When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such us"

you will never ever be able to prove no intent to resume and as such the entire effort is beyond pointless

short for relationship

this is basically the equivalent of saying that content-farm writers might read your content and bastardise it into seo slop. okay, sure, it's true, but it was always true and AI doesn't change it significantly

if a potential defense is to simply the spammers, then the site was previously just as likely to start hiring content-farm human slop writers as they are now likely to use AI, i.e. the site probably wasn't that great in the first place and had equal potential to deteriorate, AI or no

oof I only caught the meaning of this on the third read. depressing

this doesn't really negate or address the fact that the sample you're basing your position upon clearly doesn't account for the content that you couldn't tell was made using AI

I only gave AI coding assistants as a secondary example as to why AI obviously isn't something that people are suddenly going to realise they don't need, and you're over-focusing on it because clearly you have an existing and well-thought out position on the topic, but it's completely beside the point

this thread is about AI generated text content online