yathern

You absolutely don't need a Mac Mini - Plex/Jellyfin runs great on a cheap Intel N100/N150/N95 Mini PC (with hardware transcoding). Prices are still up from two years ago - but you can find them for $250 if you know where to look.

> The team combined multiple lines of evidence. They used a high-speed camera to film real butterflies taking off at over 1,000 frames per second to capture how their patterns behave in flight, as seen through the eyes of a bird.

> To test how patterns affected real attacks, 100 volunteers acted as “predators”, trying to catch virtual butterflies on a touchscreen.

This sounds fascinating, and I'd love to see footage demonstrating the barber-pole effect. If that's not available, I'd alternatively love to see footage of volunteers trying to tap butterflies on an iPad.

The winning model (Cloud Agent) is Promptless, and in very small grey text, you might be able to spot a "Built by Promptless" on the page if you look closely.

While I'm sure this benchmark is one worth optimizing against, and some real thought was put into it - it also seems possible that the rubric was specifically designed to be one that helps promote its creator. If one runs a contest, it's a dangerous situation to also have an entrant. Either the contest can be favored for the entrant, or the entrant can have special training privileges. To put it another way, it can't be assumed you'll have a fair trial when your judge is also your uncle.

Not saying that this has happened here, but third party, unaffiliated benchmarks are always preferred for this reason.

My goodness. It's the first sentence of the article even. At least it's only the third post from the top of HN right now. I guess favorably we can assume a human wrote the Korean version and just translated it via ChatGPT.

Your twitter link is a summary of the linked article - from the editor-in-chief - in case someone else sees "this guy" and assumes it would be a different take than the one in the featured article.

> The LLM is not playing a game where it will be punished for good-faith argumentation, so it can afford to do more of it.

I suppose that's a fair point as well. Though, if I'm arguing with a human - and they pull up ChatGPT to make their points and do their arguing for them, I would consider that bad-faith. Even if it might be the same exact dialog as if I pulled out my phone and discussed it with AI, without of the human middle-manning. Maybe I'm just particularly sensitive, but for me, there's something about my argument being with a real human that makes it much more emotionally charged, and prompts my mind to close. I'm aware of this and try to resist, but it's I think very natural

I think it's not just the persuasiveness of the models that make them "experts at changing minds" - but also the fact that they're not humans.

When disagreeing with a human, it's very easy to view it as a competition. One is right, one is wrong - the one who is wrong is the loser. To change your mind is to be submissive to the other. I exaggerate, but I think we all feel this way at some point or another. It's why political arguments at Thanksgiving get heated. It's the fact that there's people who think something different, and think YOU'RE wrong - and vice versa! With a model, there's no person to get upset with, or to feel competitive with - to muscle for rank - or to temper your affection for while wanting to correct them.

The AI is only interacting because you asked, and clearly has no emotional stake in winning the argument. To change your mind in this context isn't to lose a contest. This makes it much more palatable to read rebuttals to your ideas - not to mention the tone and style seek to avoid offense to the reader as much as possible.

Thanks for defending your friend, I respect it! I didn't mean to entirely undermine the content - it's clear a lot of thought was put into it - though that doesn't change that it is a bit of content marketing. Nothing wrong with that, I just think I instinctually "downgrade" articles when there's a CTA "Book Consultation" at the top.

Absolutely agreed. Art made by humans is interesting not just because it sounds it looks novel, but because it reveals something about the artist.