teiferer

HN usually has a helpful ad-free permalink and this one here is no exception.

Though the NYT article should be the primary one, not the ny post one.

Indeed.

You can hardly re-create the binary from a suitable source, just like the weights just fell from the sky. But you can change the binary (patch the machine code) just like you can adjust the weights. The comparison is quite apt.

Not questioning that it's off/biased/..., but what are you basing your "feel" on? Anything empirical or really just a feel?

It's odd because I wonder if anybody actually cares about such scores. It's not like millions of end users look at the score and use it to make a decision what to buy. Subscriptions can easiliy be canceled and people anyway use the models they "feel" work best for them. Hardly anybody I know uses an even remotely scientific method to evaluate model performance. It's mostly vibes with a little bit of (mostly flawed) A/B testing sprinkled in.

So ... why bother to cheat?

> It’s the food

Your sibling comment from 1 minute earlier:

> I am personally dealing with colon cancer, and one of the incredibly annoying things about the awful disease is the number of truly clueless people who use it to advance some culinary agenda they believe in without evidence.

A revision control system is a tool the journalists could use to achieve this. Commits to the 'enacted' branch could have commit messges documenting the context (when, how, why, who). Unmerged branches could represent proposed but ultimately rejected (or still in progress) changes with the same amount of meta data.

Of course a tool itself doesn't solve the problem. You need somebody to use the tool. But the tool makes it easier to solve the problem.

Could you elaborate?

They detect being coated, no matter liquid or not. (Source: Parents who smoke. And don't tell me the crap they are inhaling is a liquid.)

Sticking your head into non-liquid substances can have the same outcome. It therefore is not a suitable method for detecting wetness.

That statement is nonsensical for the usual formal notion of "undecidable" which is about infinite sets of inputs that a machine is asked to classify as "yes" or "no" instances, also called a decision problem.

P-vs-NP is no such decision problem. It has a single instance, we just don't know its validity.

> I think it unlikely given the harm it would do to them

Did it harm them in any real way that the original training material was also of questionable origin? Not the least.

We're being naive if we think this is not happening. Apart from some high profile enterprise contracts (which average Joe Physics Researcher does not have as they are using "free" credits insteador pay a personal account out of their own pocket), everything remotely attractive is being mined. Too sweet of a gold mine to pass by.

I'll stand corrected if an official statement from OpenAI/Anthropic comes out stating the opposite together with a whistleblower program worth its name. Until then it is safe (and reasonable) to assume that this is going on. The silence is telling.

Good public transit even benefits those not using it by reducing other kinds of traffic. Everbody should be in favor of such investments but many people just don't think that far during their next traffic jam frustrations in rush hour.

I'd love to make a survey to see if people read that headline as past or future. Honestly, I couldn't tell before reading the article.

Isn't that sad? The language used for international communication is ambiguous about whether a statement is in future or past?

A good writer minimizes ambiguity by re-wording things in unambiguous ways. (Or the opposite, if desired.)

> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut

There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases.

A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. In its specific case that's quite obviously not a good example because removing benign spots isn't harmful, but overlooking malignant ones is, so there is no downside.

But if we think a little further and generalize then there is great risk (and by extension, harm) to delegate diagnosis and treatment (of health issues in general, including potentially or supposedly fatal ones) to ChatGPT and similar tech. That we'd end up with a net positive is far from obvious.