lazysheepherd

1) This seems to be for strictly Antrophic interal tooling 2) It does not "pretend to be human" it is instructed to "Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does."

Since when "describe only what the code change does" is pretending to be human?

You guys are just mining for things to moan about at this point.

Because they are engineers? The difference between an engineer and a hobbyist is an engineer has to optimize the cost.

As they say: any idiot can build a bridge that stands, only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands.

It amazes me that some people will somehow still have the audacity to defend communism...

Payloads are designed according to available spacecraft capabilities. When this thing flies, market will form around it in no time.

On top of my mind: responses have feedback buttons below them.

You can simply deploy different versions and compare the neutral + positive / negative feeback ratio.

It would be sinful if they did not add other metrics like how many times the user had to correct and update their prompt before ending the chat, etc.

Data, data, data...

Or maybe they are just AB testing and aggressively optimizing the response generation?

LLMs are known to be compute/energy hungry to execute. It is a developing technology, if not downright experimental.

Therefore, this explanation is very likely. I cannot see the reason to call this a conspiracy.

I've sent a spam report here, and literally came HN right now to ask more people to do so.

This is very annoying.

www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreportform

Consider all 4 dimensions of the battlefield. You cannot be aware of every direction, at all times. Especially in cities, which has 3 spatial dimensions of potential hostile infantry positions. Therefore sheer numbers do matter.

Especially in the cities, all insurgents have to do is wait, and rain down bullets. Many will miss, but some will hit.

Things break all the time, so errors will happen.

If you look at life as good & evil, you won't solve any conflicts. You should rather focus on "incentives". Correcting bugs and errors take time and other resources, therefore require incentive to prioritize. If their bots were to stamp Microsoft projects with open source licenses, there would be huge incentive for them to tackle this problem within this sprint, and make sure it never happens again.

This bug profits them, or does not harm them at worst case. Therefore, by drawing attention and applying pressure, we should create the incentive for them to allocate resources to fix it, and make sure it does not repeat.

First, let me lay my credentials bare, so you would see where I'm coming from.

As I like so say: "I am merely 30 cloudy days away from white, and just one good tan away from 'person of color'." Therefore, I have the least stake in the racial discussion. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

However, I am not least bit of shy to hiss at either side when they cross a certain line. At one side, if you take a person's race into account while deciding anyting, you're off the game for me. At the other side, if you try to control my language, you are off the game as well.

Your capability of being offended does not, and should not grant you rights or leverage against other people.

As a tech person, one should already know why censorship, blacklists and backdoors are bad ideas. Because no matter how pure your intentions were when you were first putting them in place, once in place, they inevitably will creep forward and get bigger and worse.

Let's skip the can of worms about if the political correct speech is effective. It will be an endless discussion. However, we can discuss the practicality of policial correct speech. Because those are the two requirements of any solution to any problem: 1) effectiveness 2) practicality If you fail one, your solution is, well, not a solution.

Simple argument:

1) "offensive" is a subjective, and elastic word

2) therefore set of possible offensive words for a large population is infinite

3) infinite amount of taboo words = no communication

4) THEREFORE: we must assert that political correct speech is not "practical", and can't be a solution to anything.

I advise you to put your energy into more practial solutions. That is, if you don't care more about being right, over being effective.

Yeah, but it is somewhat like saying as your revenue scales, so does your expenses. And it indeed does. But it is a net win at the end of the day, for 10% of a billion is much better than 10% of a million.

With space debris, come debris cleaning bots, with those bots come more space debris, and next generation of cleaning bots ad infinitum. The net profit/benefit will scale in the meantime, which is what really matters.