strangegecko

It could be a "Severance" type of show

Industry is more soft porn than a show about heists

> Take that to its natural conclusion.

What on earth is a "natural conclusion" in this context? I'm going to assume that part of your comment was written by AI.

> Why isn't it an issue for hyperscalar data centers, particularly as NVidia wants to move to annual chip updates.

Because he's not a hyperscaler? He's not operating data centers where compute is fungible, he's buying an individual machine that he wants to use for years. He can't just keep buying a new machine and fob off the old one to someone else's less demanding workload.

This advice is inadequate and impractical. Most people don't have access to doctors who spend enough time on them to really get to the bottom of all issues.

In most countries, there are simply too many patients per doctor, meaning it's a conveyor belt of "good enough" 5 minute appointments.

People will turn to other modes of discussing and analyzing their problems if they go to professionals repeatedly and the problem still isn't solved. Just telling them not to do so or to ignore 100% of it isn't going to solve that.

> It is not realistic to stop the generation of nonsense (of the malicious or the stupid sort).

Seems like a big statement. Why is it not realistic? People are already doing it manually by having one LLM fact check output from another.

I like using Gemini Notebooks, but this is one of my current frustrations. At least with the current UI, I can see the document getting quoted, but not the actual quote to verify what it's saying or to see the context of the quote. So I'm forced to find the content manually or just trust the LLM got it right.

It could have been a human trying to justify their existence. "no no, I wrote this ad copy myself: look, no em-dashes!".

In general, buying binds capital, more than renting.

If you include opportunity cost into the decision, then your contrast can and often will disappear (i.e. renting is financially superior or "winning" in your terminology).

Also, is this an AI comment? Because it's surely poetic about something that doesn't call for it.

> Individually, people prefer be kind and compassionate, prefer to help when they find another in trouble.

What are you basing that claim on?

How do you know it's an actual preference and not mainly caused by external factors (e.g. not wanting to be seen doing unkind things, wanting to be seen as upstanding)?

Have we arrived at the conclusion that terms like "understanding" and "interpretation" for what is happening is appropriate?

Isn't it simply that there are two competing goals that the LLM received RL for, honesty on one hand (a goal that is often assumed as implicit for humans) and producing a solution that meets expectations (which doesn't technically require honesty)?

So the LLM didn't read and interpret the prompt and decide via discussion to violate ethical behavior, the unethical result merely won out because ethics wasn't a hard requirement (and one that isn't reliably detected in the result). An LLM doesn't fear punishment, so ethical behavior is simply one of many positive signals that were trained into it.

FWIW, I had a similar impression of your comment as JohnMakin.

> give the friend a subtle clue that it's time to move on

If a friend needs someone to listen about life struggles and you tell them you're tired of it and don't want to hear it anymore, then you're not being a friend. Maybe you want to be encouraging and that is fine, probably helpful. But you immediately seem to turn that encouragement into threats of social exclusion:

> If that clue isn't heeded the friend often gets targeted 1:1 offers for help and can eventually just be shut out of the group altogether for being too negative.

I've seen this many times - people suggest "solutions" to something they don't quite understand, then get angry when people don't take their non-functional solution. Similarly, in online support groups, I've seen plenty of people storm off angrily because people are being "too negative", not seeing that sharing these feelings, wanting to be heard and knowing you're not alone with certain struggles can be part of a discovery and healing process. Those people use similar language you used in your comment of "misery loves company", essentially accusing people of wanting to be miserable and choosing depression.

If you want people to read what you write in a charitable fashion, refusing to explain the background for your comments is rather dysfunctional BTW. In general, people don't all have the same mental context and experience background to understand where you're coming from.

It could work, but those types of jobs (paying significantly more than local salary and yet fully remote in a different time zone) are few and not easy to get nowadays (not that they were ubiquitous before).

No, he says it's a different category of problem, and ability to solve one doesn't carry over to the other and it doesn't imply intelligent understanding.

The overseas person didn't work out because of time zone and cultural and language barrier friction that wasn't anticipated in the idea.

This isn't analogous to the threat of AI.

I'm guessing with backstabbing he means China's practice of stealing technology and closing off the market for foreign companies.

Lots of smaller and mid sized companies that tried to invest in the Chinese market lost everything because the government protected and supported local copycats, with no intention of giving the foreign company fair access to the market.