ShamelessC

:shrug:

Well, I thought this was funny. For what it's worth.

Okay well let's just agree to disagree then.

It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did.

Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.

It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.

That doesn’t sound super sketchy or anything.

This is confusing to me as I thought the simple act of measuring the wave collapsed the wavefunction.

Sad that so many investors/founders couldn't figure this out themselves.

I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to conceal the truth, which is that the guy supported a monster.

It’s a practice, but not necessarily a standard one. In any case if even one person sees that, the advice will have served its purpose.

And bizarrely different plot points.

> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.

What?

> Sure it does.

What? Contradicting yourself immediately?

> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”

…what?

> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.

I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).

> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.

Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.

You’re aware that by prompting it in that way you’re effectively telling it to role play in a fictional scenario?

So do you just have a list of like thousands of specialized discord servers for every question you want to ask? You're the first person I've seen who is actually _fond_ of discord locking information behind a login instead of the forums and issues of old.

I personally don't think it's useful evaluation here either as you're trying to pretend discord is just a "service" like google or chatgpt, but it's not. It's a social platform and as such, there's a ton of variance on which subjects will be answered with what degree of expertise and certainty.

I'm assuming you asked these questions because you yourself know the answers in advance. Is it then safe to assume that you were _already_ in the server you asked your questions, already knew users there would be likely to know the answer, etc? Did you copy paste the questions as quoted above? I hope not! They're pretty patronizing without a more casual tone, perhaps a greeting. If not, doesn't exactly seem like a fair evaluation.

I don't know why I'm typing this all out. Of course domain expert _human beings_ are better than a language model. That's the _whooole_ point here. Trying to match human's general intelligence. While LLM's may excel in many areas and even beat the "average" person - you're not evaluating against the "average" person.

I mean, yeah I was having a tough time understanding it. I felt like my comment conveyed my confusion pretty well. I still think the wording is strange and the most clarifying thing you’ve provided is that this guy is a blogger and his target audience is far less broad than HN encapsulates.

Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.