tejohnso

My take: explicitly means clearly and without any vagueness or ambiguity.

It doesn't mean "to say something ..."

So..."if it becomes clear without vagueness or ambiguity that the user is ..."

I don't think it's about preventing such requests only if the request is clear. It's about being certain about what is being requested before censoring. Also, "explicitly clear" is redundant. Wording might be improved with "unambiguously" rather than "explicitly".

Fortunately some jurisdictions are death wise enough to provide humane means that we can request from a health practitioner.

One of the many reinforcing feedbacks that contribute to making global warming such a difficult problem.

The article is about not having time to waste. It is not about the expectation of what might happen at the extreme. I understand it's easier to dismiss and point out an equivocation fallacy than to discuss the main position of the article.

As T.S Eliot put it, humankind cannot bear very much reality.

No evidence?

The extreme global average temperatures haven't happened in the entire history of human civilization, so the kind of evidence you might be expecting is tough to come by. But there are dozens of papers suggesting what might happen using trend projection and knowledge of agricultural and sociopolitical constraints, if you care to look. There is also the fact that heat related deaths are already in the hundreds of thousands per year and the trend is upward.

The fact that someone finds it unreasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality is ... interesting.

The report does include a >50% human mortality extreme category and the author of the article is referring to a separate report suggesting 3°C is much more likely than expected. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. The report is pretty confusing to digest.

But because you think that particular consequence is overstated in the article, you're suggesting that the article itself is a lie? The title refers to the lie that we still have more time and that we don't need to get to work immediately to address climate change. It's about the overall lackadaisical attitude toward the climate emergency.

You seem to be suggesting a dismissal of the article's core message.

So, are you suggesting that we actually have plenty of time to deal with climate change, and that things like "Net Zero by 2050" correctly convey the severity of the situation?

What is your assessment of the current year number of deaths attributable to climate change, and expected number of deaths at a 3°C above baseline global average temperature?

Yeah, I guess "self-defense militia" aligns more closely with some people's feelings than "violent gang" does. To each his own.

The only equating I did was to point out that either way you're stuck having to align with a group of people willing and ready to commit lethal violence with lethal weapons.

Use whatever words you want but I think that's clearly violent and it's clearly a gang, which by definition is "a group of persons working together" or even more specifically, "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends". In this case the newly formed gang is certainly unlawful.

So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang.

I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.

For Apple folks I guess, but would be nice to see a pointing stick. Trackpoint keyboards are becoming difficult to find and a suitable replacement would be an instant buy.

A 51 g serving might contain 40 g of the protein blend, making it a protein powder as the primary ingredient is protein blend.

However, this is plant-based protein, not pure way isolate. A plant-based protein powder from mung beans for example isn't going to be 100% protein. Chickpea powder contains roughly 20% protein.

So I don't know if that helps at all, but it doesn't seem as bad as you and you might be suggesting.

You don't have to presuppose, you can choose any one of the common positions that work well. Like, it shouldn't matter if you have nothing to hide and are law abiding, or, it's safer for the children, or, it's for the greater good and you're being selfish, etc.

It's astonishing to me that a technical conversation at that level can be had with a machine that is performing computations to statistically determine what tokens it should use based on numerical weights and relationships. It just doesn't seem like it should be able to come up with details and insights like this, assisting one of the most intelligent humans on the planet to work through something so detailed.

Counterproductive for me. Seeing all that tasty looking food makes me want to binge.

> A talented creative with a vision could make something more interesting and enjoyable in an afternoon

I should hope that a "talented" creative "with a vision" could, do better, yes. But now a talentless hack devoid of vision can do something half decent too. And if you don't think this is half decent, just replace "now" with "soon".

Same. I think there's a lot of AI prejudice influencing people's opinions on AI output.

I wonder what would happen in a study where some art is critiqued by one group that is informed that the art was created by AI and another group that is uninformed.

I found the OP AI videos much more entertaining than this camcorder silliness. It was interesting to see how literal the AI interpreted the lyrics, but then sometimes took the liberty to add clips of synchronized dance moves which actually seemed like a good match for the tempo. And each shot was different and engaging in some way. I tired of watching a bunch of grown men thrash around like idiots in a cramped van after about 5 seconds. How you consider that artistic is beyond me.

Well, rational or not, anybody that put a significant life savings into early TSLA and kept it there is retirement money rich now.

Lots of rational people kept shorting, thinking sanity would prevail, and ended up losing bigly.

> there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

Oh? Do tell.

We have plenty of centi-millionaire individuals in the world. Over ten thousand in the USA alone.

The "not really" aspect is so significant that it's barely a joke. It's more serious and thought provoking than a simple joke. I guess that's how good satire works.

This in particular I found quite interesting:

"My research is a collaboration between me and several large language models. We are co-investigators. When you ask me to explain my research without ChatGPT, you are asking me to speak on behalf of a collaborator who is not in the room. "

As people start to regard these LLMs or agents as collaborators rather than tools, it's going to become more realistic to make a statement like that. When I use a hammer, I can't ask it what type and size of nail I should use to do the job. It can only help me with the physical hammering. But when writing with an agent there is a conversation and some decision making that it is responsible for. I might go down a path that I otherwise would not have thought of on my own. And then there's the possibility that I also talk to it about my personal life and have an emotional relationship with it. I could easily see someone wanting to credit their AI agent as a recognized partner in their work.

The text seems like it's there as a basic low effort placeholder.

Maybe it's still a one person project and they don't want to spend their time crafting reasonable marketing fluff pages, so they relied on an LLM to generate that while they focus on the tech side of things.

Quake III Arena was pretty entertaining. Doesn't seem like it came from a company that had been ruined for years.

I definitely noticed something around the Doom 3 release many years after Quake III Arena. The new game just didn't seem to have the same industry pushing, genre changing energy. Or maybe I was just older and had moved on, and didn't care as much.

Yup. Most people are going to say "I have nothing to hide" and go with the flow. The ones who don't are signalling that perhaps they do have something to hide.

> Now, I want to be careful here, because this is the part where it would be very easy to start waving my arms around.

Very strong LLM signal there. I don't mind people using LLM in their writing, but when there are LLMisms like that in the text, it takes away from the reading experience in multiple ways. Firstly, it screams out LLM use and changes the reader's focus from the content to the content creation. Secondly, it's just bad writing that reduces reading enjoyment. I'm looking forward to improvements that eliminate these obvious problems.

How did LLMs end up doing this anyway? I wasn't seeing this kind of thing before LLMs. Was there a large corpus of training material with this kind of thing is common?

Also using codex as a full time partner these days. What do you think happens in a year or so that changes the way it works around the tools? It becomes the only tool we interact with, and it assumes control over the others?

Also...

The US' limitations in its ability to project power have been exposed. Having American bases in the middle east has been shown to be nothing but a liability for host countries. And Iran has proven that it can withstand anything the US is willing to throw at it, and hit back hard, over a relatively prolonged period.

And Iran has shown that its constitution is strong and power succession is effective even after a massive decapitation strike. There was seemingly zero turmoil, control appears to have been maintained without issue.

And Iran's non nuclear option of controlling the strait has been tested andd shown to be highly effective.

And Iran has gained significant operational experience with its massive stores of drones and missles.

And the US has lost multiple billion dollar intelligence installations in the region.

And Americans have been made aware of the Israel lobby like never before, and Trump is in a very difficult position heading into the midterms.

That example flowed well and didn't stand out to me.

But what happens when you no longer feel that you have a decent chance of being able to determine that something might have been created with LLM assistance? Do you not mind because you can't tell anyway, or do you refuse to read anything at all for fear of potentially consuming some LLM assisted work?

I'm fine with it as long as it's not full of the usual signals, because that's just bad writing that I don't enjoy.

Chasing a bird of lesser intelligence so that it slams into an office building window seems especially cruel.

I didn't have a slightly panicked moment, but sometime in the last year my approach to programming changed.

When starting a project, I used to think about how I was going to structure it, how the large pieces would interact, how some of the details would work out, and then I'd work through alternatives and consequences on my own.

Now I don't think about it on my own so much as have a conversation with an LLM about it. And it's great because it can quickly gather information from various sources, I can ask it for links to canonical sources, I can ask it about trade-offs between alternatives that I might not have considered, and through conversation, I end up with a more detailed analysis.

Then as I work through the development, I keep my new agent partner in the loop for discussion, suggestions, and troubleshooting. It can't be trusted completely, but it's certainly reliable enough to be considered a useful tool for my purposes.

I went from thinking it was an interesting toy to play around with, to completely integrating it into my work flow, and that change seems to have happened very quickly.