I ate the onion for a minute

As a software dev, LLMs are a plague. The amount of generated slop code that now exists and will be created with them is a headache, even from SWE who I'd expect a higher caliber of code from, all from using "a useful tool". All I've observed is it slowing people down, or worsening quality.

Art is deeply human. Communication is our most powerful asset as people, as groups, as a species, and art is its distillation, communicating more complex ideas than could ever be expressed through simple logical imperatives.

shub

Talk about fast tracking that proposal hah

Probably because the plan is to orphan the std.json module.

If an LLM were actually independently more capable of solving problems, sure, maybe we could start considering the deeper implications. Fact is though that they are not, and are unlikely to be. If you think an LLM can actually build your infrastructure, I've got a bridge to sell you.

If it requires no human input, and can evolve entirely on its own, and is fully capable of reasoning as humans are, then I'm sure we'll be seeing the singularity in no less than a decade. However I am skeptical of these claims, and the language used seems sensational compared to the paper itself.

Comparing random happenstances of nature like the shapes taken on by grains of sand to artistry is silly, so too it is when we're talking about fancy autocorrect. The existence of intention is as important as the outcome. That is to say, no, to your questions. I am more than just a model. And you?

By the looks of it, R1 just uses a more efficient method of RL, which still requires human input to verify it's correct, and still doesn't change the base argument: training an LLM does not equate to learning, it's just feeding data into a statistical model.

An LLM being trained is not the same as learning, and an LLM outside of training cannot learn. It is just a very sophisticated statistical model, and will only produce outputs as good as its inputs, which have to be human.

Yes, the very first tribes warred easily without words; most civilisations throughout history warred without sharing a common tongue; people murder for no reason other than enjoying cruelty. Action comes before words. But like I said in my other reply, we won't agree.

I think I understand most of your positions now, I don't see a point in continuing this conversation. We will not convince each other on the diametrically opposed principles of word vs action, and it seems that is where most if not all the disagreement in this thread stems from. Cheers.

Words only exist in the aftermath of the establishment of a common ground, which is preceded by violence. Societies and their laws are built on exploitation and blood; the way we fix them is through actions that make words an acceptable means of resolution.

The reason isn't just words lol, it's a combination of sociopolitical circumstances and material interests, which are all in a cycle of action and reactions.

Outside of academia, debate is theatre. It does not matter how well you argue if the audience is swayed towards your opponent. A debate where the fascist argues poorly but wins over the crowd is a win for the fascist. Rhetoric is king. Regardless, the endpoint is violence, action.

That's just another way of gaining the monopoly on violence. That is the objective, without that, the words mean and do nothing. If all it amounted to was a winner and a loser in a debate, a fascist wouldn't bother.

No, the sword decides who wields the pen in the first place. In other words, the ones with the monopoly on violence dictate the terms under which words are used.

You think words are as valuable and meaningful as actions?

Sorry, but I don't follow, these two replies read like they're leaning on a lot of contextual bits you have in your head which I simply didn't get the memo on. If it's anything to do with the other thread, my answer is the same: talk is cheap.

A person saying racism is wrong does not effectively address racism or redistribute power - but that's not a bad way of putting it, democrats certainly say many things, and *do* very few things.

I have agreed on simple assertions that you incorrectly extrapolate into incomparable higher level ones. That democrats have weak-handedly tried to pose as the party of progress does not equate to them having been effective.

3/4 of Americans aren't Nazis, nor are people so black and white. Evil reigns not by earnestly appealing to the majority, but by misleading it. If you believe that 3/4 of Americans are fully truly evil, we've already lost, and there's no point doing anything. Thought terminating cliche.

Cool statement I guess, doesn't seem relevant to essentially anything. If you want to make a point, it would be helpful if you directly stated what your point is.

Systematic problems require systematic solutions. You can handwave nearly any problem away as being up to each individual to deal with, but that's a pointless thought terminating cliche. Again, it is the responsibility of the powerful to redistribute their power and do the right things.

Anything that promotes or takes advantage of them is misinformation; I am essentially not the direct target of any of them, and so I can in fact tell you they are of import to me despite not being directly threatened, because they are a threat to civilization.

had me going for a second when I only saw the first post

If the misinformation is not attached to any real threat, then who cares? But in this case, the fact is the misinformation is a tool and precursor to fascism, which changes the answer entirely.

Democrats are responsible for not mounting a more solid defense against fascism, leaving aside their preconceptions, ideals, and self-interested laziness, in order to combat Trump's misinformation campaign. To borrow a classic quote: "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing".

How much of it has or will affect the average LGBTQ individual? A number of those are overstated legislative or identity politics-related victories, many affecting only employees of the state, which will be rendered ineffective by the loss to Trump, and by Trump's supreme justice court.