nicebyte

Sorry, you're the one making ridiculously strong claims like "actual truth doesn't exist". The onus is on you to prove them.

Like I said in a different thread: thousands of years from now, it might literally not be possible to prove that you ever existed, but that wouldn't change the "actual truth" - the fact that you did exist, and do things. Stuff happens outside of your person, in the real world, without regard for our ability to perceive/articulate/"know" it. It's only possible to say things like "actual truth doesn't exist" if you think your mind is the only thing that really exists.

> i'm not interested in educating you on thousands (literally dating back to plato) of years of scholarship/philosophical discourse on the topic of epistemology.

Cool. Then don't start a discussion with me.

I'm talking about a case where the _best explanation_ you have suggests the defendant is guilty, however the _actual truth_ happens to be that they're innocent

I just happened to log into this particular acct on of the laptops I use and never bothered to switch to the account I normally use.

I do not appreciate your condescension.

Either state your argument coherently so as to address my completely valid objection, or move on if you're not interested in having a discussion.

Arguing by sending bare links to wiki articles isn't productive and doesn't make you look particularly good.

I had an account on orkut way back in 2006. It wasn't very active - I had IRL friends and none of them were there, so I had no reason to go there. The first social network that really caught on among us was LiveJournal.

I really do miss "old" forms of social media like forums and live journal, but unfortunately I think the era of people talking to each other on large public platforms is well and truly over. Even if _somehow_ it was possible to get everyone out of the claws of corporate social media, there is no fighting the onslaught of bots. There is simply no way to remake Orkut as a "good" form of social media because the world in which such a thing was possible doesn't exist anymore.

unless you subscribe to an entirely solipsistic worldview, "actual truth" obviously exists regardless of your ability to measure or perceive it.

I think we disagree pretty fundamentally on what something "being true" means.

It's possible to come up with an "unnecessarily complex model" for why someone accused of a crime did the crime, but that has completely no bearing on whether the defendant is actually guilty. If the defendant is, in fact, innocent, then the prosecution's model is, in fact, untrue - no matter how well it fits the evidence.

sorry, saying that "it's a matter of taste" whether the earth revolves around the sun is completely ridiculous. making useful predictions is one thing, but actual truth is not a "matter of taste".

I think you mean dichotomy dude

sounds like bargaining to me.

I am not joking when I say that 4chan is a more rejuvenating and life affirming place than Linkedin

Asinine comment.

OpenAI needs to be held accountable for these incidents. It's not "openAI agents" who perpetrate these, it's OpenAI, the organization. If I personally use an "agent" to break into a company's network and gain access to things I'm not supposed to have access to, I will get the book thrown at me. Yet when openAI does it, they somehow manage to get away with it? And you're defending them? Who's the clown in this situation?

under what conditions would the infinite loop be scheduled over something else after it has run out of its time slice?

arguably there are already several places in the language where things like this can happen. for example, initializing a static function variable has certain thread safety guarantees (two threads entering the function won't step on each other), and while it's nice to not worry about it, this can certainly be a problem if you're trying to stay close to the metal and not pull in any dependencies.

> I don't see a good reason for the transformation: pretty much any time you are writing a bare infinite loop like this you don't want anything else to happen (it's also silly that it only happens with a particular spelling of an infinite loop, keeping the others still undefined).

I'm not disagreeing with you, but two things worth considering are 1) you don't always write loops like that _intentionally_; 2) if a bug like that slips into production system, it would be good to make sure it doesn't starve other threads.

> How To Write With An LLM

Simply don't.