lanyard-textile

I do seem to be misremembering. I see there's the Custodian, Reviewer, and Steward badges after all.

I wonder if there was a quirk with the way these worked? Or were these introduced later along the way? I do remember taking legit issue with this all that time ago.

Maybe I was mad at nothing :)

StackOverflow's poor gameification of the platform is the singular reason it suffered from its awful culture.

If you had enough reputation, you'd be invited to these review queues, like the Close Vote queue.

You got a point toward a new badge if you voted to Close. You get nothing if you chose to keep it open. There was always a perverse incentive there to act, to make a question "better," to nitpick a perfectly fine answer.

Given that Jagex (and whoever owns them now) can pull the rug and kill Runelite at any time, it's remarkable there's been some sense of harmony at all. Concessions have been made both ways.

The relationship isn't perfect. But the fact that there's a relationship and a two way dialogue at all? Unheard of.

I'm with you. I don't quite grasp the magnitude of response.

Good takeaway.

There's a lot of people who have a strong opinion about these things - But they're not sure how to vocalize their thoughts about it.

Or they have strong feelings, but they're not sure what opinions emerge from it yet.

The comments we see are from people who have refined both.

Same. :)

The "humdrum" sound of industry.

I think a better way to view these numbers is that they are "confidence" levels, not probabilities in the sense you are interpreting.

You should never trust the machine. ;) But you can have a level of confidence with it, and you can know where it's strong and weak.

This is a language association machine, not a math and probability machine. It is specifically weak with any real math.

As simple as a coin flip is -- as simple as a child may be able to understand it -- the machine is specifically not designed to produce an accurate mathematical probability.

That's just not how LLMs work. It's not how they're designed. Nor these decision models which use identical principals.

All that aside... agreed regardless. Irreversible choices should never be finalized by such a volatile technology, regardless of how well we benchmark it. If there's even a chance it could be wrong, that is unacceptable.

Very weird and very cool :)

It's a fun question but the models aren't designed for questions like that.

iirc, Jev has a "jaggedness" page that lists known problem areas with the model, and plain mathematics (which I'd argue this is) is one of them.

Yeah, that is not procedural oversight. That's simply not following the law, plain and simple.

A community-based Did You Feel It score of IX.

Scale is 1 to 12. This is a 9.

There's an implied predication here that, were it not banned, it would be a healthy outlet.

I am not so certain of that.

My gut says it would not be.

They're mathematicians, not linguists :)