snet0

Correct, that's not how LLMs work [0].

[0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

Why are you taking the fall and not the PM who authored the change (and submitted a PR with an uninformative title and no comment) and, I'm assuming, plays a role in managing the project?

How are you handing the cube state to the model?

A fine way to start a house fire, sure.

So what? If I could take a sugar pill that guaranteed I feel comfier looking at my screen, nobody can tell me it "doesn't work". I'm not trying to optimise my life, I'm trying to have my eyes feel better.

But have you considered that it feels better?

Or: this is why you strictly regulate the storage of confidential/private/sensitive information.

There were multiple failures here, but a single step could've prevented the entire hack: industry-standard encryption of the sensitive information.

Is there a perspective or analysis that you've read that does a good job, in your opinion?

What did happen, then?

I mean the fact is that it's easy to fake because the permissible space of interpretation is almost infinite. That will always be the case, and the only thing people demonstrate when they create fake analyses is that they can't be bothered engaging with the art honestly. That's fine, but it's no mark against the interpretation of art.

The real question is: who are you fooling? In a field where there's no right answer, the only person being fooled by you avoiding an honest reading is yourself. If you can make the right noises to trick someone into thinking you've considered the story, why not expose yourself to art and actually consider the story?

I don't think you believe this, honestly.

The point, in my view, of art is to form personal relationships with the artwork. I can read Notes From Underground with no background on the era or the author, and pass my own judgements on the characters. I can read the thoughts of the Underground Man and feel them in any which way that strikes me. The point isn't that Dostoevsky is telling me something, rather he has presented an opportunity for me to explore something I've not explored before. How guided and directed that exploration is remains mostly in the hands of the author, but sometimes all it takes is a presentation of a character and the rest of the work is the reader trying to integrate that character into their own worldview.

The most boring art is the art where the author stands next to it and describes what it's about. That's the art where I think "what's the point of reading": the author has summarised the intent of his work, presented the canonical reading and disparaged other readings. You might as well just have the intent summarised on a post-it.

The most powerful art can be the most "meaningless", the art where most of the work is by the reader, searching for connections between what's on the paper and what's in their head. Have you never spent hours with a poem or piece of music, and each retread sparks some new attachment to an experience or feeling? Perhaps the author never even considered their work to relate to how you related to your friends as a child, but I see it as totally wrong to claim that either you or the author have erred in that reading.

At some point we have to bound our terms, obviously if someone interprets The Great Gatsby to be making commentary on interplanetary space travel they are incorrect but if someone was to interpret The Great Gatsby as containing some meaningful commentary that can be related to interplanetary space travel, that is within reason.

If your definition of "interpretation" involves making claims about the author or empirical details, it is clear you can be incorrect. Otherwise, I think everything else is permissible.

I hate this sentiment. The book isn't "about" a thing in particular, neither does it "mean" any specific thing. It may have been written with some ideas in mind, and there may even be overt indications as to those ideas. Everyone has their own relationship with each and every piece of art, and may sometimes choose to include the artist and/or their intentions, but may also choose to exclude them.

The article even discusses certain readers' developing relationship over time! The book hasn't changed, the text is static. Even within a person, the understanding of the text is fluid. To say it could possibly be misunderstood is to say that there is a wrong way of understanding, but clearly there are at least multiple correct - or at least not incorrect - understandings!

A certain subculture of online males have fallen in love with Patrick Bateman. Now some of them might not have read or watched American Psycho, so to say they misunderstand the art is nonsense as they haven't actually seen it. For those that have and still choose to worship the obviously awful character, I see a lot of people say they haven't "understood" the film/book. They have! They just disagree with author's own interpretation!

I haven't read much about it to understand what's going on, but the development of multi-modal models has also felt like a major step. Being able to paste an image into a chat and have it "understand" the image to a comparable extent to language is very powerful.

Notably this doesn't match the current thread.

I never said C++ was inefficient, you don't have to prove anything. It's a hypothetical, try use your imagination.

> Corporations gobbling up tax payer money to build power hungry datacenters so billionaires can replace workers is.

Which part of this is important? If there was no taxpayer funding, would it be okay? If it was low power-consumption, would it be okay?

I just want to understand what the precise issue is.

If a "C+++" was created that was so efficient that it would allow teams to be smaller and achieve the same work faster, would that be anti-worker?

If an IDE had powerful, effective hotkeys and shortcuts and refactoring tools that allowed devs to be faster and more efficient, would that be anti-worker?

If you define "simple thing" as "thing an AI can't do", then yes. Everyone just shifts the goalposts in these conversations, it's infuriating.

This is conspiratorial nonsense.

I don't see why this would be the case.

To say that a model won't solve a problem is unfair. Claude Code, with Opus 4.5, has solved plenty of problems for me.

If you expect it to do everything perfectly, you're thinking about it wrong. If you can't get it to do anything perfectly, you're using it wrong.

I've often seen people mention that one reason for games like Call of Duty being so enormous is optimising for performance over storage. You'd rather decompress textures/audio files at install-time rather than during run-time, because you download/install so infrequently.

> With their latest data measurements specific to the game, the developers have confirmed the small number of players (11% last week) using mechanical hard drives will witness mission load times increase by only a few seconds in worst cases. Additionally, the post reads, “the majority of the loading time in Helldivers 2 is due to level-generation rather than asset loading. This level generation happens in parallel with loading assets from the disk and so is the main determining factor of the loading time.”

It seems bizarre to me that they'd have accepted such a high cost (150GB+ installation size!) without entirely verifying that it was necessary!

I expect it's a story that'll never get told in enough detail to satisfy curiosity, but it certainly seems strange from the outside for this optimisation to be both possible and acceptable.

You can read the proposal and found out, if you're interested.

> In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal communications services that are not available to the general public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons involved in the activities of a particular company, organisation, body or authority.

I've had this thought before, when seeing labels that talk about kWh/day. The answer is very simple: you pay per kWh. When people want to know power efficiency, what they really want to know is "how much will this cost me to run?". That answer is most easily expressed in kWh per unit time.

Do you try trick your calculator by entering large sums that it might not have been programmed to answer?

I've not followed any evolutions in this area, but there's a cool paper from 2014 about using WiFi channel state information to detect 87%(!) of falls in an experimental condition[1]. It's been a while since I read the paper, and I no longer have access, so caveats aplenty, but it's one of those things that pops into my head sometimes and I wonder if it's seen any real-world deployment.

[1] - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847948

> Instead they believe model alignment, trying to understand when a user is doing a dangerous task, etc. will be enough.

Maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding, but I feel like hoping that model alignment and in-model guardrails are statistical preventions, ie you'll reduce the odds to some number of zeroes preceeding the 1. These things should literally never be able to happen, though. It's a fools errand to hope that you'll get to a model where there is no value in the input space that maps to <bad thing you really don't want>. Even if you "stack" models, having a safety-check model act on the output of your larger model, you're still just multiplying odds.

In cases like this, where it's used to "automate the boring stuff", I just see it as outsourcing. You don't want to spend time building the frustrating CSS/HTML or whatever that isn't your skill set, and the LLM is quite great at doing it.

> That's a great question!

Never forget what AI stole from us. This used to be a compliment, a genuine appreciation of a good question well-asked. Now it's tainted with the slimy, servile, sycophantic stink of AI chat models.