"What is not reasoned in, cannot be reasoned out."
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 756
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 756
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Or Perhaps:
- They have a large corpus of context files to help with all aspects of how the output is generated
- They're using a model with specialised fine tuning for the task attempted
- They have a series of MCP servers with access to relevant tooling available
- They have many many hours of prior experience with the setup and usage of such tools
- They used multiple tools manually and pulled the bits they needed
- They just said "Make me a thing" and it just worked like magic
they mention reinforcement learning, pre-training and other general LLM concepts, but none of these are related back to the tasks they are talking about.
The point is, there was no explanation of how any of this was achieved, which can lead to confusion about what was actually achieved.
The LLM wrote some docs vs the LLM rewrote the library from end to end are very different things.
It's very much a "Don't give up on X, look at what can be achieved" but without any actual details on what is required to achieve those results.
if you are worried about those things to the point where cutting off the toes of pets for convenience is a consideration , you should not get the pet (or re-home it if you already have it).
Incidentally cats can be trained, it's not the same as dog training but it does exist in some forms.
That's a very narrow slice of a supply chain to be using it as a basis for conclusions like that.
I don't disagree that the "shortage" is artificial, i'm just saying that your local store having stock and raising prices isn't a good basis for determining overall supply chain health.
Like looking out your window and seeing rain, so obviously it must be raining everywhere.
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn't arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren't related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren't going to agree on interpretation so let's just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point.. in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that's my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you'd go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you'd argue against positions never taken, but we've already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That's a more complicated discussion and i don't disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn't apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn't take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
TL;DR;
Your reply doesn't make sense because it seems you didn't understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.
That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.
OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn't relate to it at all.
This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…
Translation:
The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a "well regulated militia" , so to speak.
And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.
So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:
2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
Nobody was attacking gun rights.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else's rights.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.
I'm not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone's opinion of me, laughter included.
You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
As we've established above, this is also unrelated.
Also, "anybody who doesn't agree with me is a lefty" is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
OK so, benefit of the doubt.
You know that statement wasnt asking for protection right?
It wasn't until the (late) 1980's that there was universal acceptance that baby human's felt pain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies
Its not better that this was the case, but it's a little more even-handedly stupid.
IKR, fuck those people with disabilities for inconveniencing you.
How dare they use a physical impairment as an excuse to not do things to your satisfaction.
Selfish Is what they are.
in case it wasnt abundantly clear, that was sarcasm.
Failing to do your best to deal with it.
A small difference, but important.
Human interaction is all politics to varying degrees.
Unless you are an extreme outlier someone at some point will need to interact with someone outside of the business to get the things the business needs.
Unless you are a dictatorship of a business, coming to a consensus on what the business needs is going to require dealing with people.
I agree that politics for personal gain or CV juice is bullshit though.
Being competent should be enough, unfortunately that's not generally how it works, which is also bullshit.
Not necessarily, they have been known to shut down accounts they think are trying to evade a ban.
Not sure how sophisticated it is, but it does exist.
If you look at a bullet point list and see drama I think I can safely ignore your threshold for "drama".
TL;DR;
On by default is exactly what forcing interaction looks like.
There are many effects regardless of whether or not you interact with the features directly.
Disagreeing vehemently doesn't make you correct.
Some of these things are on by default, that's the very definition of forcing an interaction, even if it's just to hunt through the settings to turn it off.
Regardless, just don’t interact with the AI stuff and you won’t even know the difference.
It's so close to the same energy it's even parroting the same kind of "make absolute statements without understanding the realities of the subject" mindset.
Let's start with some basics.
- At least some of these features are on by default so from the get go you are already being affected, even if it's just a minor annoyance.
- You need go out of your way to turn them all off (and keep on top of new additions, again, some of which are on by default).
- They are also regularly "reset" during upgrades
- Assuming you're a regular user and don't religiously go turning all of these features off at the root, some of them will be part of interacting with the daily usage of the browser, incurring a performance cost.
- Right click context actions are a good example of this, as is AI tab grouping and the planned Link Preview (though the latter currently needs a key press to activate)
- Even if you never use the tab grouping, the analysis of what's needed to suggest things is still a performance cost, possible a non-trivial one.
- Any new code or feature added to the browser contributes to bug and maintenance surface area, meaning resources used to develop, test and maintain that code.
- This is resource not being used on other, non AI, bugs and features.
- Project management is complicated so it isn't a one-to-one ratio of resources from one thing to another, but it's still a non-zero percentage.
Now for the slightly more esoteric
- LLM's as a whole are provably bad for the environment, power grids and water supplies , that's both the running and the model generation
- People might not care about this, but not caring doesn't negate negative impacts in this case.
- Some might consider the tradeoff to be worth it, that's fine, still affected by it though.
I'm not arguing for or against LLM features (though for the record i'm not a fan of them being auto-included) i'm saying that your statement about not being affected if you don't use them is incorrect.
What do mean by "cognitive empathy"?
Damn, the density of bad faith in that single sentence might collapse into some sort of fallacy black hole.
Congrats
TL; DR;
- Using bad analogies to explain things that are already confusing helps no-one
- AI is currently a marketing term used to push LLM's
- Tools used appropriately garner satisfactory results.
people need to specify that they’re against generative LLMs, like Chat-bots or slop-generators, not “all AI”.
I agree, how does throwing out bad comparisons relate to that ?
There was just a thread on Twitter where a company showcased an amazing tool for animators - where you, for example, prepare your walking/sitting/standing animations, but then instead of motion-capturing or manually setting the scene up, you just define two keyframes - the starting and the ending position of the character… and then their AI picks the appropriate animations, merges between them and animates the character walking from one position to the other.
It’s a phenomenal tool for creatives, but because the term “AI” appeared, the company got shat on by random people.
if you are talking about cascadeur or something similar, that doesn't use an LLM afaict, it's based on ML Trained on their own internal data (or so they say).
I don't disagree that tools used in a way that plays to their strength are useful.
People are often conflating AI with LLM's, which makes sense for the average person, because that's how it's been marketed and sold.
LLM's aren't even really AI but here we are.
No. All generative graphical slop AIs and generic chat-bot LLMs have been trained on large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means.
I was very specific in my wording, but as i said, i could be wrong, if you can point to any big commercial LLM’s that don't adhere to my classification i will concede the point.
THAT’S the major difference.
I mean, yes, that's what i said.
So i stand my my conclusion that in the context you laid out, Photoshop isn't a good comparison to most, if not all of the current tools that would be considered AI.
So, he basically says something that directly contradicts what you’re saying - he prefers the generative slop machines, than tools that actually help developers or artists.
I could be wrong but half of that statement was sarcasm.
I basically read it as:
So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great! I’d rather have AI art and human code.
Running code someone vibed up without understanding what it's doing, it stupid If i had to pick one way around or the other, I’d rather have AI art(which is this case is significantly less of a security risk) and human code (which should potentially be of a higher quality)
I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is how the term AI is used.
None of these things are really intelligent and LLM's are predictive semi-hallucination machines cobbling together best guesses at what's supposed to come next in the sequence.
The way i personally see it is that the latest gen "AI" stuff is basically sitting on LLM's in some capacity. Area recognition, language, image/code generation etc.
Anything else is just normal(perhaps smart) tools, using algorithms of some kind, ML etc
Citation?